ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

High Speed 2

Susan Elan Jones: What the current budget is for High Speed 2.

Si�n James: What the current budget is for High Speed 2.

Patrick McLoughlin: The spending round of 2013 set a long-term budget for the delivery of HS2 of £42.6 billion. That is made up of £21.4 billion for phase 1 and £21.2 billion for phase 2. The budget includes significant contingency provision of £14.4 billion. That budget is being tightly monitored by the Government and we are confident that the railway will be delivered for less than that figure. I have set HS2 Ltd a “target price” for phase 1 of £17.1 billion.

Susan Elan Jones: France, Germany, Japan and many other countries have benefited hugely from their high-speed rail links, and many of us are fed up with a largely London-based commentariat that is seeking to stop a north-south high-speed rail link for this country, but does the Secretary of State agree that, if we are to build a better consensus, it is extremely important that the budget figures he referred to will be both monitored and met?

Patrick McLoughlin: I completely agree with the hon. Lady. We have a good record of delivering big projects on time. The Crossrail scheme, which is being built at the moment, involves more than £14 billion and is the largest construction project in Europe. It will greatly enhance transport in London; it is essential, but HS2 is essential for the rest of the country.

Si�n James: The Secretary of State has outlined the significant budget of the HS2 project, but what assurances can the Government give me and the people of Swansea East that they will give full consideration to the proposals of the Howard Davies commission and the benefits of a future high-speed rail link between Cardiff and Heathrow airport?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not want to anticipate or prejudge what the Davies commission report will say. The commission is very important and its interim report is due by the end of the year. The hon. Lady makes a point about
	infrastructure and the rest of the railway network. It is essential that we carry on investing in rail services in other parts of the country and, over the next spending review, Network Rail plans to spend some £37.5 billion on the current railway network.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State was forced this week to launch a so-called fightback with a piece of expensive and self-justifying research from KPMG on HS2, because he has lost control of the budget and of the arguments, including the need to travel at speeds in excess of 250 mph. It is about time that we replaced HS2 with a thoroughly researched and prepared integrated transport strategy for all regions, including Wales, and covering air, road, rail and communications links. When will he cancel that project and produce a decent overall strategy?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure I was forced to do anything, but I was asked by the Public Accounts Committee to do proper research and to back up the case for HS2. I dare say that if yesterday’s report had come out negative, all those people who are against HS2 would have been shouting it from the rooftops. Because it came out positive, they are opposed to it.

Alan Reid: The KPMG report showed that every region of Britain will benefit from plans for HS2 to go as far as Leeds and Manchester, but Scotland and the north of England would benefit even more if the lines extended to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle. How are the Secretary of State’s discussions with the Scottish Government progressing in that regard?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am prepared to have the meetings with the Scottish Government. I announced last October that we would be looking to take the line to Scotland. That work is ongoing.

Louise Ellman: The Secretary of State referred to funds to be invested by Network Rail in the classic lines. Will he give an assurance that, in addition, there will be sufficient funds to invest in new passenger and freight services on lines freed by the development of HS2?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed. The hon. Lady who chairs the Transport Committee embarks on an important point. One key problem that any future Government will face is that of capacity on the network, as well as speed, and this line is also very much about capacity. If we made the improvement that some people suggest on the present line, it would lead to capacity increases of about 53% between London and Birmingham. HS2 will lead to a capacity increase of 143%. That is why it is so important to meet the objectives that we both have.

Jeremy Lefroy: My right hon. Friend says that HS2 is about capacity rather than just speed, so will he instruct HS2 to cut the speed so that the route can be more flexible and do less damage to dozens of communities along the route, including five in my constituency?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have tried to say that the case for HS2 is not just about speed and that capacity is one of the main reasons for it. Although the reduction in
	journey time between London and Birmingham is not huge—it will be in the region of 30 minutes—for great cities in the north such as Manchester and Leeds the reduction will be very beneficial. There is not just one reason; there are many reasons for doing this project. Even if we took the line down to a lower speed limit, it would not reduce the cost by much—we would be talking about 90% of the present cost, rather than 100%.

Jim Cunningham: I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan). Has the Secretary of State looked at an alternative integrated rail system, as opposed to high-speed rail? Is there a Treasury limit on spending for that project?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have set out carefully the spending limit, and we have a put in place a reasonable contingency, based on internationally recognised figures. It is a big contingency and I hope, as the chief executive of Network Rail said a few weeks ago, that the project could come in under the budget that the Government have allowed.

Stephen Mosley: The KPMG report this week revealed £15 billion of economic growth, mainly in the main conurbations of the north. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that not just those main conurbations but smaller towns and cities such as Chester will benefit from new and increased services because of increased capacity on the west coast main line?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this does add to the capacity and more services. Since I have been Secretary of State for Transport, I have noticed that my colleagues on both the Opposition and Government Benches always press for more and better services. If we are to adapt that and celebrate the success of railway travel, which in this country has gone from 750 million passenger journeys a year to 1.5 billion, with an increase doubling on inter-city lines, we must find that extra capacity.

Lilian Greenwood: There is strong, cross-party agreement that a new north-south line is vital to tackle the serious and growing capacity constraints on our existing rail network. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this investment will not draw funding away from essential upgrades to the existing rail network such as the northern hub, electrification, and new inter-city trains? Does he agree it is imperative that the new north-south line remains on budget and on track?

Patrick McLoughlin: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, and she has pointed out three important projects that will take place between 2014 and 2019: 880 miles of electrification; the new purchase of intercity express programme trains for the east coast and great western lines; and the northern hub. Those important projects are planned for between 2014 and 2019, and refer to the £37 billion that I mentioned Network Rail is going to invest in the current railway system.

Potholes

Tony Baldry: What steps he is taking to tackle potholes on UK roads.

Julian Smith: What steps he is taking to tackle potholes on UK roads.

Norman Baker: The Department for Transport is providing more than £18 billion for highway maintenance for both the strategic and local road network between 2011 and 2021. That funding will help address the issue of potholes, which we know can cause problems for all highway users, including cyclists.

Tony Baldry: Last year Oxfordshire county council repaired 5,662 potholes, and so far this year it has repaired 4,719, at a cost of about £5 million. However, the way we repair potholes has not changed much over the years, so may I ask my hon. Friend what research is being done to improve the way we repair roads for the 21st century?

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I am happy to tell him that the Department has provided £6 million to the highways maintenance efficiency programme, which is looking at best practice, optimum techniques to keep costs down, and the materials that will be used. Two pothole reviews published in 2012 and 2013 take those matters forward, but getting best value is absolutely important.

Julian Smith: The Secretary of State took his life into his hands in my constituency over the summer by getting on his bike, and saw at first hand the risks of the pothole crisis across north Yorkshire. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue of potholes, because for rural areas it is the No. 1 transport issue?

Norman Baker: I am happy to meet any hon. Member to discuss such matters. I am also grateful for the confirmation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has joined the rest of the ministerial team on a bike: we are very committed to cycling in the Department.

Alison McGovern: Cyclists and drivers in Wirral are infuriated by the quality of our roads and the number of potholes we have. The council has suffered ferocious cuts from the Government, so can the Minister tell me what conversations he has had with leaders of local authorities about how they can ensure that our roads are of a decent standard, given the Chancellor’s austerity for local government?

Norman Baker: With respect, the hon. Lady might be misinformed about the funding, because the Government will spend more in this five-year period than the previous Government did on highway maintenance, with a greater allocation of money from the Department of Transport than happened under Labour. There will be a significant increase in the period from 2015-16 through the next Parliament. Coupled with the highway maintenance efficiency programme I mentioned a moment ago, that gives local authorities both the money and the tools to do the job properly. I suggest that she directs her remarks to her local authority.

London’s Transport Network

Heidi Alexander: What his plans are for future investment in London’s transport network.

Stephen Hammond: As the Chancellor announced at the spending review, the Government are providing more than £5.8 billion in capital grant and a further £3.8 billion of borrowing power between 2015-16 and 2020-21 to Transport for London, which will enable it to continue to invest in critical transport infrastructure, including Crossrail and the tube upgrade programme. This is in addition to more than £10 billion that has been provided to TfL over the current spending review period up to 2015.

Heidi Alexander: Can the Minister assure me that, in considering the case for Crossrail 2—which would link south-west London and north-east London—the Government will not forget that south-east London, the area I represent, barely makes it on to the tube map at the moment? Does he agree that the proposal to extend the Bakerloo line to Lewisham should form part of the strategic review of London’s future transport needs and how they can be met?

Stephen Hammond: As the hon. Lady knows, the Government are making £2 million available to TfL for the Crossrail 2 study to take place. Any proposal to extend the underground is primarily a matter for the Mayor and TfL. To date, the Mayor has made no representations that suggest that the Bakerloo line extension is a priority for him.

Gareth Johnson: Last week, a security scare closed the Dartford crossing and led to six-hour tailbacks along the M25 for local residents. Will the Minister explore ways of mitigating such problems in the future and helping the residents of Dartford, who are sick to the back teeth of problems arising from the Dartford crossing?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is right about the significant repercussions for the residents of Dartford, but he will appreciate that security is our first priority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already called for an in-depth report into the incident, the implications, and what can be done to mitigate such effects in the future.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) is right to highlight the fact that south-east London is not served by the underground system and therefore is heavily reliant on the rail system. The plan to develop a road crossing at Silvertown, next to the Blackwall tunnel, will not sufficiently provide the extra river crossings and access to docklands that south-east London needs. I stress the need for extra public transport options—including, if we build the Silvertown link, a docklands light railway crossing—that will reduce the capacity on the roads.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s case, and I accept the point about the Silvertown link—indeed, the Mayor has made a
	commitment to look at that. As I said to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), any proposal to extend the underground and the rail system in that part of London is primarily a decision for the Mayor.

East Coast Rail Services

Iain McKenzie: What his policy is on the privatisation of InterCity East Coast rail services; and if he will make a statement.

Simon Burns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government’s programme for rail franchising in March. This included the intention to return the InterCity East Coast franchise to the private sector by February 2015, and this remains our policy.

Iain McKenzie: Why does the Minister continue to claim that the only way to get investment in the east coast main line is through privatisation, when he is well aware of the planned upgrade and the new generation of inter-city trains, both paid for by the taxpayer?

Simon Burns: Because, as I would hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the purpose of Directly Operated Railways is not to run a railway ad infinitum; it is a short-term measure when a problem arises with a franchise. He is absolutely right that as part of the record-breaking investment in our rail infrastructure we are investing in the east coast main line—as we are doing in the west coast main line and other lines— because that is the way forward. With the innovation and impetus of the private sector and a private sector franchisee, the maximum benefits can be ensured from state and Government investment.

Andrew McDonald: Why have the Government reordered the franchising timetable, and what is the justification? The east coast main line timetable has been accelerated way out of order. What is the cost to the taxpayer?

Simon Burns: The reason for the change in the timetable is the unfortunate episode with the west coast main line—[Interruption.] I said “unfortunate”. Following the Brown inquiry, we redrew the franchising programmes and took his advice that the west coast main line and east coast main line franchises should not be done at the same time. That is why we are pressing ahead with putting the east coast main line franchise back into the private sector in February 2015.

Maria Eagle: The Minister knows that his decision to reorder the franchising timetable just to enable him dogmatically to flog off a service that is working well has required him to renegotiate extensions to other inter-city contracts. Can he confirm, therefore, as a result of his negotiating skills, how much money he is requiring Virgin Trains to pay to the Government next year?

Simon Burns: I do not think the hon. Lady fully appreciates the role of DOR, which is not to run a franchise ad infinitum but to do so as an emergency measure. We have made it plain, following the Brown inquiry and
	recommendations, that it is best for the private sector to run the railways, as was always intended under the legislation, and that is why we are pressing ahead.

Maria Eagle: I am disappointed that the Minister does not know what he has negotiated, but I can tell him that Virgin Trains is paying £94 million, which, according to the independent rail regulator, is a staggering £64 million less than it paid last year. As his own Department’s figures reveal that he could have ended above-inflation fare rises next year for a similar sum, is it not a disgrace that passengers face fare rises of up to 9%, adding to the cost of living crisis, as a direct result of his decision to pursue this costly and unnecessary privatisation?

Simon Burns: The hon. Lady forgets to mention that to take into account the economic situation and economic mess that we inherited from her Government, we have provided help to fare payers by reducing the average formula from RPI plus 3% to RPI plus 1%. She selectively chooses the figure of a 9% increase—an extreme increase—but that will arise in a very small number of instances, because the formula calculates an average increase. She also forgets to mention those fares that have gone down rather than up.

Transport Infrastructure (North-West England)

Graham Jones: What his future plans are for transport infrastructure in north-west England; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Baker: Since 2010 we have invested significantly in the north west, including the electrification of key rail links, the development of managed motorways and support for many local major schemes. Our rail investment strategy and this summer’s spending review include a commitment to HS2, the northern hub, additional managed motorways and a record £12 billion boost to local transport. I hope to be able to announce shortly the final approval of the Pennine Reach bus improvement scheme in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Graham Jones: Is the Minister aware of the real concern that delays to the Thameslink train contract will mean that the electric trains due to be switched for use in the north-west will not be available by the time electrification is completed in the region? Does he agree that it will be ridiculous to have electrified lines and no electric trains in the area?

Norman Baker: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to rolling stock, because I can confirm that the improvements we are introducing and the steps we are taking will provide capacity for up to 700 more trains per day in the north of England. Of course, our plans are properly aligned, so that electrification will occur at the same time as the new rolling stock.

David Nuttall: Very few of my constituents travel regularly to London, but many do travel daily by road to Manchester. What plans does the Minister therefore have to speed up their daily commute by car?

Norman Baker: As I mentioned a moment ago, the Government is investing heavily across all modes in the north-west of England, which is one of the areas to benefit most from the Government’s investment in the forward period. That includes investment in the road network, but if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about a specific road, I will be very happy to discuss it with him.

Graham Stringer: For maximum economic benefit, the high-speed link needs to go to Manchester airport, yet it is left out of the otherwise excellent KPMG report, which brings a serious dimension to this debate. When will it be included?

Norman Baker: We fully appreciate the importance of Manchester airport, which meets a very important regional need. The issue of HS2 and Manchester airport is under consideration, so the hon. Gentleman should not be unduly pessimistic about that.

High Speed 2 (East Midlands)

Toby Perkins: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of High Speed 2 on economic growth in a) Chesterfield, b) Derbyshire and c) the east midlands.

Simon Burns: Yesterday, HS2 Ltd published a report by KPMG evaluating the potential impact of HS2 on productivity and business location. The report estimates that HS2 could generate productivity benefits to the Derby-Nottingham city region, which includes Chesterfield, of between £1.1 billion and £2.2 billion per year—equivalent to between a 2.2% and 4.3% increase in total local economic output within five years of opening.

Toby Perkins: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Many of us who recognise that there will be significant economic benefits to the Chesterfield and Derbyshire area, and who support the principle, remain concerned that the current planned route could have very negative impacts on projects such as the Chesterfield canal and the junction 29A enterprise zone. What reassurances can the Minister give to people who do not want the economic benefits of HS2 to undermine other existing economic projects in the region?

Simon Burns: We do not wish or expect there to be any undermining of other projects, but I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and I hope he is reassured that the matter is out to consultation, so he and others will have a full opportunity to make their case before any final decision is taken.

Tim Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that one of the biggest but so far largely unrecognised benefits of constructing High Speed 2 is the enormous increase in capacity that it creates on existing lines, for the benefit of all regions?

Simon Burns: Yes, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that, because what is important and what is on offer is that the High Speed 2 project will continue, but not at the expense of full and continued investment
	in the conventional rail network. As he is probably aware, in the next control period Network Rail and the Government are spending £37.5 billion to ensure that we improve, enhance and add to the existing network, as well as having high-speed rail.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that this so-called HS2—if it ever appears—is going to criss-cross the M1 about four times? What is he going to do about that? And as for Derbyshire and economic benefit, is he aware that there is not a single stop in Derbyshire?

Simon Burns: On the narrow geographical issue, I accept that Toton is not in Derbyshire, but it is halfway between Nottingham and Derby, so considerable benefits will be brought to both those communities and the surrounding area. We appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman is making about the M1, but, as he will appreciate, that matter is also out to consultation, so he will have an opportunity to input into it. However, I hope he welcomes the fact that, as a result of the station at Toton, there will be significant economic benefits to the whole region, which no doubt will please him.

Daniel Kawczynski: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this vital project will free up capacity on the existing network to ensure that towns such as Shrewsbury and Blackpool will be able to have connections to the capital?

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He is anxious to have a direct service on the conventional rail network from Shrewsbury to London and I have considerable sympathy for and support with that. That is one of the reasons that high-speed rail is so important: it is capacity, capacity, capacity, to echo a former Prime Minister on another subject. That is what will be achieved, which will help areas such as Shrewsbury.

Roads Spending Programme

George Freeman: What plans he has to ensure that the roads spending programme supports a) the A47 and b) other routes of strategic regional and national economic importance.

Stephen Hammond: The development of route-based strategies by the Highways Agency will provide much smarter investment planning for the strategic road network. On 20 August, the Government announced that the Department would undertake a feasibility study on the A47 to identify ways to improve performance and support economic growth in East Anglia. I of course look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency and the A47 on Monday.

George Freeman: I thank the Minister for his commitment to the roads budget and for his agreement to visit Norfolk next week; his visit is widely anticipated and welcomed. As he knows from the Adjournment debate that we have had, the dossier that he has seen and the business plan prepared by the A47 Alliance, the A47 is a key economic artery linking our offshore energy cluster, the research park and the midlands. Assuming we have
	a successful visit next week, what opportunity might there be to access some funding to begin the process in the next few years?

Stephen Hammond: The announced study will focus on the route-based solutions that will unlock the potential for local transport innovation and for economic and housing improvements. I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Government’s investment, and I am sure that the visit next week will be successful.

Peter Bone: Does the Minister agree that improvements to A roads that are minor in cost terms can have considerable benefit strategically? In my constituency, the A509 bypass and the A45 dualling would help us enormously. Will he look at those projects?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Government have had two tranches of pinch-point improvements for the national strategic road network, and have provided £170 million for local pinch-points as well. I would be delighted to meet him at some stage in the near future to discuss his schemes.

East Coast Main Line (Rolling Stock Procurement)

Jason McCartney: What progress his Department has made on procuring new rolling stock for the east coast main line.

Simon Burns: The Department is investing £2 billion in a contract to supply 227 vehicles from its InterCity Express programme to replace the class 125 fleet and 270 vehicles to replace the class 225 fleet on the east coast main line. It is working with Agility to conclude the financing of the deal.

Jason McCartney: On my journey to and from Yorkshire every week, I regularly see the peak-time overcrowding on the east coast main line. In fact, when I brought my daughters down to London in the last week of August, we had to sit on the floor on the journey down and back up to Yorkshire. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we can have investment in HS2 and also in the east coast main line and that it is not a question of either/or?

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He is absolutely right. I can categorically confirm, as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), that it is not a case of either/or: it is both. We will continue to invest record amounts—billions of pounds—in the conventional rail network and proceed to build HS2, because it is in the national interest.

Barry Sheerman: Is not the Minister aware that my experience as Chair of a Select Committee for 10 years was that the best way to have policy is to base it on evidence? The east coast is under the shadow of the plans to build HS2. Five independent reports have said not only that it is a waste of money but that it will suck power and wealth from the northern regions to London and the south.

Simon Burns: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman, despite his 10 years as Chair of a Select Committee, when he was presumably assiduous about detail, has not read the KPMG report that was published yesterday, which categorically shows that the exact opposite is the
	case and that significant benefits are coming north of London. London gets some benefit but noticeably less than the northern parts of this country. That is why local authorities in the north support the project so much.

Isle of Wight Ferry Services

Andrew Turner: What assessment he has made of the (a) cost and (b) reduction in service of ferries between the Isle of Wight and the English mainland; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend will remember that I visited the Isle of Wight earlier this year, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are of course aware of the fares for the ferry services and of the level and frequency of service provided by the island’s three ferry operators. There has been no formal assessment. This is a competitive market, and it is for the ferry operators to decide the level of fares and services based on market conditions.

Andrew Turner: The island’s ferries provide lifeline services and the repeated cuts damage our quality of life. Wightlink has enormous debts, which are paid for out of the island’s economy. I plead with my hon. Friends to enter into dialogue to consider how public service obligations can be introduced so that we have the certainty to build our economy and create more jobs.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend will remember that I met him and a delegation from the island earlier in the year. I promised then to meet Wightlink, and have done so. There are more than 200 sailings to and from the island each day, so there is no apparent market failure. I hear my hon. Friend’s plea to put public service obligations in place and we will continue to keep them under review, but at the moment there is no case to do so.

Topical Questions

Ian Lucas: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McLoughlin: Since I was last at the Dispatch Box, my Department has announced £94 million in funding to boost cycling in eight cities and four national parks. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has today published a consultation on the long-term property compensation measures for phase 1 of HS2. The Government have always been clear that they intend to go further than the existing discretionary scheme in order to assist affected property owners. The consultation proposals that we are setting out today are designed to do just that.
	I am also announcing today important changes to the discount scheme, which will help local people who use the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, following a persuasive campaign by my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). From March 2014, those registered on the schemes will be able to make unlimited trips over the crossing for just £20 a year. For the first time, we will include privately registered vans, offering a welcome boost to small businesses.

Ian Lucas: The Wrexham-Bidston line, in one of the most successful industrial regions in the UK, north-east Wales and west Cheshire, is crucial to the development of the region’s economy. What comfort can the Secretary of State give to local businesses who have expressed the concern to me that HS2 will divert investment in any proposals in that region?

Patrick McLoughlin: As we pointed out earlier in Question Time, we are making significant investment in the whole railway system. That will come sooner than HS2. We are spending £37.5 billion between 2014 and 2019. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also talked to me about the line my hon. Friend has just referred to, and I will be looking at how improvements can be made to that line as well.

James Wharton: Pinch-point funding for our road network is very important. Ingleby Barwick in my constituency has significant traffic issues, especially where the A174 meets Thornaby road. Will the Secretary of State work with me to find a solution to make life a bit better for my constituents?

Patrick McLoughlin: I certainly will work with my hon. Friend and meet to discuss this scheme with him. It was part of the applications made originally for the local pinch-point fund, but it did not fall in the first round of that. The scheme was very successful and over-subscribed, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking hard at ways in which we might go further, and I will be happy to talk to him about his particular scheme.

Toby Perkins: Returning to the subject of HS2, will the Secretary of State confirm—we have been talking about the importance of integrating the line—that residents in Chesterfield who want to take advantage of the benefits of HS2 will not have to drive down to Toton to do so, but will have a link from Chesterfield railway station?

Patrick McLoughlin: Although the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) rightly pointed out that Toton is in Nottinghamshire, probably even he could throw a brick from Derbyshire into Toton.

Dennis Skinner: Further than you.

Patrick McLoughlin: Possibly even further than me. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield knows, the line from Chesterfield goes through the Toton works, so one would imagine that there will be a good connection from Chesterfield and other stations to the new station we are planning at Toton.

Amber Rudd: I wonder whether the Secretary of State is aware that the Hastings to Ashford rail line is the only unelectrified line on the south coast line. Will he join me in calling for the electrification of this line so that my constituents can look forward to more reliable and better link times to London?

Simon Burns: As my hon. Friend is aware, Network Rail is currently undertaking an electrification study, looking at all routes, including Hastings to Ashford, to identify potential candidates for electrification, which could be carried out in the next rail control period from 2019 to 2024. Any scheme would have to demonstrate a business case before being considered, but would then be given full consideration.

Yvonne Fovargue: Three years on from the axing of Cycling England and its £60 million annual budget, this Tory-led Government promised £148 million for cycling. That has turned out to be an average of £38 million per year until 2016, with local authorities expected to find the rest. In comparison, £28 billion is planned to be spent on roads. Does the Minister really believe that this is the right proportion and that this Government really are the most pro-cycling ever?

Norman Baker: We are the most pro-cycling Government ever. If the hon. Lady does not believe that, she should look at some of the comments from the cycling groups, who have warmly welcomed the huge investment—the record investment—that has taken place under this Government. That is a real step change in cycling, and I would have thought that she welcomed it rather than criticise it.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Will the Minister confirm that northern commuters on the trans-Pennine routes are still in line to benefit from the promised 40 extra carriages, and will he continue to look into increasing capacity on those northern commuter routes?

Simon Burns: I am delighted to confirm that commuters on the trans-Pennine express are in line to benefit from increased capacity provided by the extra 40 carriages to be introduced on the Manchester to Scotland route and the reallocation of diesel trains. The new electric trains are scheduled to enter passenger service between December 2013 and May 2014. I have no doubt that this will bring benefit to my hon. Friend’s constituents and others along the line of route.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the rail Minister look seriously and urgently at the situation at Finsbury Park station, which is jointly run by Transport for London, London Underground and Network Rail? There are welcome new platforms for the overground but there is no step-free access for the underground. The station is the busiest outside central London and it is dangerously overcrowded at many times. The Mayor is proposing changes from 2017. That is too late; we need them now.

Simon Burns: I will certainly look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said. I will consult the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and Transport for London. I hope that we can deal with this as successfully as we did when the hon. Gentleman and I last had a meeting in the Department for Transport, when we resolved another issue extremely satisfactorily.

Daniel Kawczynski: The £100 billion the Government have set aside for infrastructure projects is warmly to be welcomed. May I reiterate to my right hon. Friend the importance of the north-west relief road around Shrewsbury and the importance that we attach to this vital project for the town, which is bringing great economic benefits to the whole of Shropshire and mid-Wales?

Patrick McLoughlin: Once my hon. Friend starts a campaign he never loses an opportunity to mention it. He raised this point with the Prime Minister and he has a meeting planned with me. We are spending £9 million on pinch points to tackle existing congestion around the road. I look forward to my meeting with him, where I am sure he will make his case persuasively.

Chris Evans: One in three blind or partially sighted people are spending about £30 a month on taxis because buses cannot accommodate them through audiovisual equipment. What are the Government doing to change that?

Norman Baker: We give strong support to the bus industry through financial support directly to the operators, through the bus service operators grant, and through local authorities. Our reforms to the bus system through, for example, the BSOG reforms and the extra money provided for green buses are giving a welcome boost to the bus industry. That means that passenger numbers are roughly where they were at the end of the previous Government’s time in office.

Alok Sharma: I recently met my constituent John Letch, owner of Car Contacts Ltd, which sells second-hand cars, many of which it imports from Northern Ireland. Mr Letch tells me that in recent months the company has experienced severe delays in the re-registering of cars by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, delaying their onward sale and putting the company under financial strain. Will the Minister meet me and Mr Letch, and other traders, to discuss this matter urgently?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend refers to applications that were centralised at the DVLA in Swansea in July. There were initially some delays, but on 9 August a special team was created to deal with the more complex applications, and I think that that is now beginning to resolve the situation. However, I would of course be happy to meet him and his constituents.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The consultation on the potential closure of the Driver and Vehicle Agency office in Coleraine and the moving of 300 jobs to Swansea closed this morning. Although I do not expect the Minister to have the answers to the consultation yet, will he agree to meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and a small delegation of workers who would be affected by the closure? More importantly, will he take this opportunity to remove the smear levelled at workers that there were sectarian issues that would lead to the closure of the office when none has ever been reported?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right that I will not comment on the result of the consultation. He is referring to the package of documents
	that were published as part of the consultation, including an equality assessment. I apologise for any offence that was inadvertently caused and accept that the wording could have been clearer. I must stress that there was no intention to imply that any of the staff at the DVA might be biased in any way. Indeed, the equality assessment concludes that there is nothing in the proposal on the centralisation plans that would give rise to any bias or any perception of bias. Finally, I would, of course, be delighted to meet him, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and a group of their constituents.

Duncan Hames: My constituents look forward to the electrification of the Great Western main line. When does the Secretary of State expect to begin a consultation on any reconfiguration of services, especially in the Bristol travel-to-work area, that will be made possible by electrification and the new trains that come with it?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s welcome for our planned investment. I will write to him about the more detailed question of the timetable so that he will be well aware of it.

Sheila Gilmore: I want to take the railways Minister back to his earlier statement about the east coast franchise. Could he be precise about the innovations that I and my fellow travellers will see if the process goes ahead?

Patrick McLoughlin: We will see, when we make the invitations to tender, exactly what proposals come back from rail companies, but the simple fact is that this Government—and the previous Government, for that matter—have seen huge growth in our railways as a result of the innovation of the train operating companies. This is not new; it was well established under the previous Government and continues to be under this one.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Transport questions always tend to bust the box office, I am afraid: demand exceeds supply. The last ticket goes to Jake Berry.

Jake Berry: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), will the Secretary of State confirm that he will continue to work with me and my hon. Friend for improvements on the M66, which is a key commuter route into Manchester for east Lancashire and Bury North, both of which have played their part, with their manufacturing-based economy, in reducing unemployment in our area?

Patrick McLoughlin: I was very pleased to join my hon. Friend in his constituency a few months ago, where he explained to me some of the great difficulties he has with regard to communications and the transport links for his constituency. It is incumbent on us all to look at how we can address those particular problems, improve the transport links and, where we can, improve the road network as well as, if possible, the rail network. I
	understand that my hon. Friend has been fighting a valiant campaign, but that it has drawn a blank from the county council.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Tabling of Amendments

Simon Hughes: If he will make it his policy to encourage his ministerial colleagues to table Government amendments to Bills whenever possible in the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement.

Tom Brake: It is usual practice for Government to make amendments, where possible, in the House of introduction. However, the Government are rightly expected to listen and respond to debates on Bills in both Houses of Parliament, and it is, of course, the core strength of our Parliament that any amendments made to Bills in the other place must also be agreed by this House.

Simon Hughes: Obviously, all Governments try to introduce perfect legislation the first time around, but very few succeed. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues understand that it is really important that the democratic House has the opportunity to look at any changes that are found to be necessary as a result of the work of Select Committees and others. I hope that this Government will try very hard to ensure that we see amendments first and that they are not left as a sort of teaser at the other end of the building late in the day.

Tom Brake: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is very important that this House is given an opportunity to consider amendments but, as I said in my earlier response, it is inevitable that matters will be raised in the other House that will need to be addressed there. I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying and I will ensure, as far as I can, that what he seeks actually happens.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is trying to contribute or to make a 100-metre sprint.

Jeremy Corbyn: I will sprint later.

Mr Speaker: We are grateful. I call Angela Smith.

Angela Smith: There are rumours in this place that the Government intend to table a number of amendments to the lobbying Bill and to make a number of concessions. Given what the Deputy Leader of the House has just said, will he commit to ensuring that those amendments are tabled in this House and not in the House of Lords? Even better, why do they not just withdraw the Bill?

Tom Brake: Clearly, the Government will not withdraw the Bill. It has been made very clear over the past couple of days that the Government will bring forward an amendment on Report to address the significant issue that charities have raised with us. We hope to come to a conclusion that they think is satisfactory.

Peter Bone: Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that a more important reform with regard to amendments would be to allow Members on both sides a free vote in Committee and to not subject them to whipping? Would that not produce better legislation?

Tom Brake: That is an interesting point. I suspect that allowing free votes on amendments in this place would lead to chaos.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Recycling (Parliamentary Estate)

Philip Hollobone: What progress has been made in encouraging the recycling of plastics and cartons on the parliamentary estate.

John Thurso: At present, separate recycling facilities are provided for plastic, glass, cans and paper. A new system is being trialled in Portcullis House to increase the estate’s recycling rate. Office bins will be used for mixed, dry recyclables only, including paper, cans, plastic and juice cartons. Food and non-recyclable waste will be collected in bins at tea points and in kitchen areas. By introducing that scheme, we aim to maximise the amount of plastics and other items that are recycled. We anticipate an increase from the current 58% towards our target of 75%.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his endeavours in this regard. It is important that the Commons estate leads by example on recycling. Is he satisfied that waste from individual offices is separated properly into the different waste streams?

John Thurso: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The short answer is that I am never satisfied and we can do a great deal more. I think that our efforts to collect waste centrally and separate it into the different recycling streams will make quite a difference. I look forward to being able to report improvements in the future.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome any improvements in recycling, as I am sure does everybody else. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the use of plastic by the building as a whole? We have removed much of it from the catering department, but not all of it. However, Members’ offices are still supplied with plastic envelopes that are not recyclable or biodegradable. I could be
	wrong about that, but I believe it to be the case. Will he ensure that we use only paper and cardboard, which are completely recyclable?

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. Some of the matters that he has raised are outwith our control, but we seek to pursue the strategy that he advocates wherever it is within our control.

Jim Shannon: Recycling targets are set for households, councils and manufacturing businesses. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to set targets for the House of Commons Commission so that it is trying to achieve the sorts of targets that we try to achieve at home?

John Thurso: I am delighted to confirm that we have a target. The House has a target to reduce by 75% the waste that is generated by weight by 2020-21, based on a 2008-09 baseline. Our recycling rate for the 12-month period ending 31 August was, as I have just said, 58.4%. I hope that the measures we are taking will get us far closer to our target.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Private Members’ Bills

Charlie Elphicke: What recent discussions he has had on private Members’ Bills.

Tom Brake: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had a range of recent discussions on private Members’ Bills and has given evidence to the Procedure Committee as part of its inquiry.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Minister agree that the conduct of some Members of this place with regard to private Members’ Bills undermines Parliament and weakens the power and the voice of Back Benchers, and that the timetable ought to be reformed to give the House greater strength and a greater say?

Tom Brake: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Procedure Committee has been considering the issue of private Members’ Bills because he gave evidence to that inquiry. The Committee will come forward with a wide range of recommendations that might address the points that he has made. I am sure that the House will have the opportunity to debate and resolve those issues in the near future.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister may not be aware that I recently served on the private Members’ Bill Committee of the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which reported yesterday. If he cares so much about private Members’ Bills, does he realise what a sham that Bill is, in the sense that everybody knew it was not a genuine private Members’ Bill, but a Government Bill once removed? Is that good for Members who introduce private Member’s Bills?

Tom Brake: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has strong views on that particular private Members’ Bill but, as I stated, it is important that we consider these matters in the round. The Procedure Committee has rightly devoted a substantial amount of time to considering this matter and the House should look at its proposals—for example, on the process of balloting Members—so that it can come to a sensible decision.

David Nuttall: Does the Deputy Leader of the House not agree that whatever procedures are adopted, it is essential that no private Members’ Bill should be allowed to pass through the House without receiving the fullest and most detailed scrutiny, and certainly not less than that given to Government Bills?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He may be aware that the Procedure Committee’s report states that it is not its intention to facilitate the passage of Bills into law through the private Members’ Bill route, and that it should not be easy to do so. Its position is that it does not want a simple process that allows private Members’ Bills to be rushed through.

Sheila Gilmore: Unusually, I was here last Friday for the consideration of private Members’ Bills—I had the joy of having secured the Adjournment debate. I have to say that it reminded me just how dreadful the process is. Any member of the public would be appalled at the behaviour the House in these matters and the way that Bills are talked out. Last Friday, I actually saw a Minister participating in that process to ensure that a later Bill did not receive proper consideration. Surely we need urgent reform?

Tom Brake: All I can say is that there are cases where private Members’ Bills do not make the progress that Members who promote and sponsor them would like. However, there are examples of Members—they include the Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—who have, when in opposition, successfully passed private Members’ Bills. It is possible for Members to make progress.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Palace of Westminster (Restoration)

Pauline Latham: What progress has been made on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

John Thurso: Following consideration of the study report on the condition of the fabric of the Palace, the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords House Committee agreed, in October last year, to commission a comprehensive independent cost appraisal of a range of
	options for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. The opportunity to prepare the independent options appraisal has been advertised, and six interested bidders who met the brief qualification requirements have been invited to submit a proposal. The deadline for submissions is 11 October. It is anticipated that the successful tenderer will begin work in January 2014.

Pauline Latham: My concern is that if we decant from this place for five years, which has been rumoured, new Members in 2015 might never serve in this Chamber. That would be detrimental to their experience of being in Parliament, if they serve only one term. Is it possible to consider moving us into the House of Lords, with the Lords moving out for the period and us then moving back in?

John Thurso: I understand that there is precedent for that. The purpose of the independent options appraisal is to consider all those points. The critical point is that no decision will be possible until the next Parliament, so no decision will be taken on whatever option may be thought be best until sometime in the next Parliament. It will be the Parliament after that before the decision is implemented. The key factor is that all Members of both Houses want to achieve the best value for money for the taxpayer, who will ultimately be paying for this. That should be the guiding principle, provided we can work appropriately.

David Winnick: Since £30 million a year is spent on both Houses for essential maintenance, and recognising the state of the building as described in the report last year—widespread defective mechanical and electrical services, fire risk, asbestos and so on—should we not reach a decision more quickly on the rebuilding of the Palace, and not leave it in a state where each year we are spending money when, at the end of it all, rebuilding will have to take place?

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely good point—one that has been considered in the essential maintenance work that is going on. Clearly, the mechanical and electrical services in particular have to be brought up to a safe and workable standard so that we can occupy the building. I believe that time and money spent now in getting a really thorough appraisal will produce the best value result overall, but we have to keep spending money to ensure that the building is safe and proper to use.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Select Committees

Keith Vaz: What assessment he has made of the current level of independence of select committees.

Andrew Lansley: The independence and impact of Select Committees has undoubtedly increased markedly since the implementation of this Government’s reforms. The
	election of Chairs by the House and of Committee members by the members of political parties has been instrumental in achieving this increased independence.

Keith Vaz: Does the Leader of the House agree that Ministers should not seek to influence or interfere in the work of Select Committees?

Andrew Lansley: I do agree with that. I attach great importance to mutual respect and trust between Ministers and Select Committees.

Pre-legislative Scrutiny

Diana Johnson: What plans he has to extend the practice of pre-legislative scrutiny.

Tom Brake: The Government are committed, wherever possible, to publishing legislation in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. We have a good record. We published 17 draft Bills or sets of draft measures in the last Session, which is more than the previous Government did in any Session. I am sure the hon. Lady would be aware that, before the summer recess, the Government published substantive draft Bills on deregulation and consumer rights and will publish further measures as the Session progresses.

Diana Johnson: I am disappointed that the Leader of the House did not respond to that question because of his experience with the NHS Bill, which did not have pre-legislative scrutiny and had quite a torrid time in Parliament. Has any thought been given to why the
	lobbying Bill did not receive pre-legislative scrutiny, particularly considering that the Government’s legislative timetable is so light?

Tom Brake: Clearly, the Government’s legislative programme is not light, as the hon. Lady suggests it is; in fact, it is very full. As for the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, there was pre-legislative scrutiny in respect of the lobbying proposals, although it is correct that such scrutiny was not possible for the other aspects of the Bill. As I have stated—[Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to hear that we published 15 Bills in draft in the 2012-13 Session—more than in any previous Session by any Government.

Cheryl Gillan: Has the Deputy Leader of the House given consideration to one of the largest Bills this House has ever seen, which is due to hit it in December? I refer to the at least 50,000 pages that will accompany the High Speed 2 Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in pressing the Department for Transport to allow us not only to look at some of these papers in advance, but to have pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, which is going to be gargantuan?

Tom Brake: I do not know whether the right hon. Lady was able to ask that question earlier in Transport questions. Having previously been a Transport spokesman and having been involved in a number of Transport Bills, such as the Crossrail Bill, I am absolutely certain that there will be extensive opportunities for people to debate these matters.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: I wonder whether the Leader of the House would give us the business for when we return after the conference recess.

Andrew Lansley: The business for the week commencing 7 October will be as follows:
	Monday 7 October—The House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 8 October—Remaining stages of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Day 1).
	Wednesday 9 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.
	Thursday 10 October—Debate on a motion relating to free school meals, followed by a general debate on funding for local authorities. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The business for the week commencing 14 October will include:
	Monday 14 October—Remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Day 1).
	Tuesday 15 October—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.
	Wednesday 16 October—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 17 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 18 October—Private Members’ Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 10 and 17 October will be:
	Thursday 10 October—Debate on the third report of the Environmental Audit Committee on wildlife crime, followed by debate on the first report of the Work and Pensions Committee on “can the Work programme work for all user groups?”.
	Thursday 17 October—Debate on the sixth report of the Transport Committee on the Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group, followed by debate on the eighth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the contamination of beef products.

Angela Eagle: We are always grateful to the Doorkeepers for looking after us. May I take the opportunity to wish Bill Perkiss, who has served as a Doorkeeper for 26 years, a long and very happy and retirement? It is well deserved.
	The House has spent this week dismantling the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. Members in all parts of the House have lined up to condemn the Bill as a sop to vested interests and a sinister gag on free speech. On Tuesday, the Government caved in to pressure and agreed to an unspecified concession on clause 26. May I ask the Leader of the House whether that will include amendments to schedule 3? Does he not realise that the rest of part 2 is riddled with problems as well?
	Given that the Leader of the House has just announced that the Bill will return for its Report stage on the first day following the recess, will he tell us how on earth we are expected to judge any amendments that the Government may table? When does he intend to publish any new amendments, and whom will he consult? Does he not agree that, in order to give the House time to consider the changes to clause 26 and to allow the views of charities, campaigners and his own regulator on the problems with the rest of part 2 to be heard, he should delay Report stage?
	Some of the more generous critics of this mess of a Bill on the Government’s own Benches have suggested that the sinister gag on charities and campaigners might just be an innocent drafting mistake. I usually appreciate optimism, but I think that is taking it a bit too far. The reality is that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was spot on when he said that part 2 would “chill free speech”, and was right to vote against it along with nine of his Conservative colleagues. What a pity that the Deputy Prime Minister, who I am told cooked up the Bill at a “high-level meeting” with the Prime Minister, was mysteriously absent from the vote. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether that was because the Deputy Prime Minister could not be bothered to turn up and vote, or because he was ashamed of his own authoritarian Bill?
	We must be clear. The Bill is a crude and cynical attempt by the Government to shut up their many critics in the run-up to the next general election. However, they have been found out. Is it not time that they listened to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), and went back to the drawing board?
	This week, the Liberal Democrats have been left to do the Tories’ dirty work on the gagging Bill. In fact, they have become the Bill’s most fulsome defenders. Such has been their enthusiasm for this gag on free speech that I am prompted to suggest that they invest in a dictionary, so that they can look up the meaning of the words “liberal” and “democrat”.
	I never cease to be amazed by the sheer effrontery of the Liberal Democrats. This week the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), unveiled an election promise to repeal secret courts legislation. He hoped no one would remember that it had only got on to the statute book, a few months earlier, with Liberal Democrat support! Who do they think they are kidding? In that dictionary, they might also want to look under C for consistency, and then move down the page and check out the meaning of “cynical”. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) used an interview with one of the weekend papers to announce that she was in despair over her own party.
	This week, the Education Secretary underlined just how callous the Government are when he asserted that those who turn to food banks have only themselves to blame. The Transport Secretary promptly agreed with him, and the Prime Minister refused to disassociate himself from the remarks during Prime Minister’s Question Time. How out of touch can this Government be? It is a scandal that since they came to power, one third of a million more people have had to use food banks, and all this Government can do is berate them for it.
	The Chancellor used the phrase “living standards” 12 times in a speech that he gave earlier in the week. He can say it all he likes, but it will not make up for the fact that it is his squeeze on living standards that means that people cannot feed themselves and their families by the end of the month. Prices have risen faster than wages in all but one of the 39 months that this Government have been in power, and all they have done is give tax cuts to millionaires and defend the privileged few. So will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on how we can build a recovery for all in an economy that works for working people?
	As we all leave and head off to our party conferences, I would like to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his unprecedented outburst of realism on his radio phone-in show this morning. He announced that it was
	“unlikely that at the next general election we are going to get an outright majority”.
	I think he just might be right about that one.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House and join her in wishing Bill Perkiss a very happy retirement. We very much appreciate the way in which the Doorkeepers look after the Members of this House and wish him well.
	The hon. Lady asked only two questions. One was in relation to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. We have no intention of delaying Report stage. It was perfectly evident in the course of this week that the Opposition’s approach to the Bill was to talk on early groups of amendments at inordinate and absurd length in order to try to prevent scrutiny of later groups. [Interruption.] Well, we will make sure that the Bill is scrutinised properly.
	My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House made it very clear on Tuesday that we will table an amendment on Report. We will publish it on or before 1 October and its effect is confined to clause 26 in principle, which is to ensure that for those who are undertaking expenditure for electoral purposes the substance of the test will be the same as in 2010. We have made it clear that it has never been our intention to change the substance of the test of what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes.
	We are very clear, however, that in relation to schedule 3 and other parts of the Bill we will change the activities that will be controlled as part of controlled expenditure. We will bring down the limit, and rightly so. We will disaggregate that constituency limit, so as to make the regulation of non-party campaigning expenditure more comparable to the regulation of party expenditure and to make it apply at the constituency level as well. If I can publish the amendment earlier and consult with others, I will certainly set out to do so.
	While I am on the Bill and Report stage in our first week back, as I announced, I continue to await a reply from the Leader of the Opposition to a letter that I sent two months ago asking him whether he wished to use the Bill as a vehicle for giving effect to his proposals to give members of trade unions a deliberate choice about their participation in political funds. Not only have I had no reply, but it is perfectly evident from watching the Leader of the Opposition’s rather lamentable performance in Bournemouth that the trade unions are
	not going to let him implement the changes to the political fund and its operation that he announced earlier in the summer. They will not let him do it. He and the Labour party have one route to make sure those changes happen and to entrench them; it is to use the Bill on Report, and it is not too late for them to table amendments on Report that would have that effect. I call on them to do so.
	The shadow Leader of the House made some remarks about the recovery. Let me make it clear that it is this Government who inherited the most appalling deficit—the biggest annual deficit of any developed country. Let us remember that that recession was a reduction in gross domestic product of 7.2%. The idea that we could recover from such a deep recession and resolve such appalling debt problems—not only Government debt, but consumer debt—without implications for people’s living standards over the short term is nonsense. We are minimising those implications and, as a Government committed to fairness, ensuring that in the process those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden, not least through our changes to the personal tax allowance, which mean that people in work and on low earnings have seen their tax burden reduced, with 2.7 million people taken out of income tax altogether. The Labour party never includes that in the figures it uses.
	The most important thing is for people to have security through employment. We now have the lowest number of workless households we have seen and 1.4 million more private sector jobs. That is the basis upon which people will feel the benefits of this recovery in the years ahead.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a serious incident occurred on the Dartford crossing last Friday and led to its being closed for seven hours, which brought home how dependent the whole economy of the south-east is on that one piece of infrastructure. As we are considering bringing forward proposals for a new crossing in the lower Thames, may we have a debate so that we can discuss the optimum solution for the whole economy of the south-east?

Andrew Lansley: I am indeed aware of the incident. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, I remember when a further Dartford crossing was being contemplated back in 1985-86, and at the time it was considered that the dangers of a bridge being closed because of high winds were mitigated by the fact that there were tunnels. We hoped never to encounter a situation in which both the tunnels and the bridge were closed, but we have, so to that extent this is an important issue. I cannot at this point promise a debate, but I will encourage my colleagues at the Department for Transport to see what possibilities there are for involving the House in further discussions about those prospects.

Frank Roy: A year ago many Remploy factories were closed and the Government promised extra help for those disabled workers. Sadly, many of them are still unemployed. May we have a statement on why that promised help has failed so many?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), has reported to the House on a number of occasions about this. He will know that the Remploy board considered all bids for the business. It has identified a preferred bidder for viable automotive factories but has not concluded that other bids were viable. Around two thirds of former Remploy workers who are accessing the support available to them are now either in work or undertaking activities aimed at getting them closer to work. I know that my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions will continue to keep the House fully informed.

Robert Halfon: May we have a debate on the best way to achieve a living wage? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the best way to do that is either by reintroducing the 10p tax rate on earnings up to £12,500 or by taking those earning the minimum wage out of tax altogether?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. We want to give people not only security, but good prospects and rising living standards. That is what we are aiming for and what turning the corner in the economy, which we are doing, is all about. We want to sustain the recovery, which means sticking to the policies that the Government have set out, but included in that, as he rightly says, is ensuring that those on low wages do not have to pay tax. That is where we have made such a success. Someone working 35 hours a week on the minimum wage will have seen their income tax take halved, which is very important.

Lisa Nandy: Later today the House will debate the critical subject of child protection for the second time in 12 months, but I am led to understand that for the second time in 12 months the Minister responsible for child protection will not be responding to the debate, and neither will any Minister from the lead Department responsible for that important area. Will the Leader of the House look into the matter to see whether the Department for Education has abandoned its responsibilities to children? If not, will he clarify for the House how we can hold the Minister responsible to account for this most important of issues?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She knows that Ministers take child protection extremely seriously, which is why, not least, the Home Secretary has supported the development of work to combat child exploitation and crimes against children. Ministers will respond to and participate in the debate this afternoon. Ministers take these issues extremely seriously, as does the House.

Bob Russell: May we have a debate on the independence of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority? This is not an attack on IPSA, but I have established from responses to parliamentary questions that this year IPSA has already had 13 meetings with Ministers, eight of them in June and July, as well as seven meetings with Treasury officials. On 19 July, the chair and chief executive of IPSA met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a meeting at which Treasury officials were also present. The chief executive informed me in a written answer:
	“I do not intend to provide further details of these meetings as to do so may inhibit free and frank discussions in the future.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 556W.]
	Mr Speaker, you chaired a meeting last week at which it was let slip that the Leader of the House had that very day had a meeting with the chair of IPSA. Would the Leader of the House care to put on record what that discussion was about?

Andrew Lansley: I do not think I let it slip; I made it very clear that I had had that meeting, simply because it was the first time that I had met the board of IPSA. I did that on the same day and I made it clear to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that I had met the board, not least because, in the context of the discussion that we had in the Speaker’s Committee, I did not want it to be thought that the points I had made to the board had not been made. I wanted to make it clear that I had made those points, which related to the board’s consultation on pay and pensions.

Derek Twigg: We heard on Tuesday an announcement from the Secretary of State for Health of additional funding for some hospitals—mainly in the south, I might add. Other hospitals did not get any extra funding, however, even though hospitals such as Whiston, which serves my constituency, has seen a 25% increase in emergency attendances. There are similar pressures at Warrington and Halton hospital, which also serves my constituency. May we have a debate on this matter? The Secretary of State did not explain himself on Tuesday, and it would be interesting to find out why those hospitals did not get funding while others did.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority, which are respectively responsible for the commissioning and regulation of provider trusts, jointly took a view on the allocation to individual trusts of the additional funding to meet winter pressures. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and ask him to inform him of the criteria that were applied when those trusts were selected.

Nigel Adams: Whole-life sentences are quite rare in this country, and they are reserved for the most dangerous prisoners. May we have a debate on the ability of prisoners on whole-life tariffs to challenge their sentences, following a recent ruling by European judges that whole-life sentences contravened prisoners’ human rights?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that the Government do not agree with the view that human rights are contravened in that way. There are proper measures in place to review whole-life tariffs, but I will of course raise his point with the Lord Chancellor in the first instance. I will invite the Lord Chancellor to respond to my hon. Friend about how we will approach that judgment.

Barry Sheerman: I agree with the Leader of the House that the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, but is he aware that young people in my constituency and up and
	down the country are unemployed and desperate for a job and the chance of a good way of life? They face intense competition from other young people in Europe who come here because they think there is a better chance of finding a job here. We have to have a debate on what are we are going to do for the 1 million unemployed young people who need a chance to have a good life.

Andrew Lansley: I am glad that we agree that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. Indeed, in this financial year, the top 1% by earnings will contribute nearly 30% of income tax. Equally, we probably agree that we want to see young people in employment. It is vital for them and for our economy that those young people should have education, training and employment and that they do not fail to acquire the habit of employment. The fact that the number of young people not in education, employment or training is at its lowest for a decade is helpful, as is the fact that more than 1 million apprenticeships and 100,000 work experience placements have been created since the election. We are not in the least complacent about this, however. About 900,000 young people are unemployed, and we want to reduce that figure.

Oliver Colvile: As my right hon. Friend may be aware, my constituency of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has close links with Gibraltar. Indeed, yesterday was national Gibraltar day. I am delighted to support the campaign to give that gallant royal naval port, which has played such a significant role in the defence of Britain over the past 300 years, the George Cross—similar to the award to Malta in 1942—to demonstrate the House’s support for Gibraltar during these difficult times with the Spanish Government. May we please have a debate on that?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall what the Prime Minister had to say by way of expressing to the people of Gibraltar our very strong message of support, and the House will be pleased that a distinguished group of parliamentarians were with Gibraltar on its national day to express our support as a House. I am aware of the recent launch of a campaign for Gibraltar to be awarded the George Cross. As he knows, all reasonable cases for gallantry awards are given careful consideration.

Louise Ellman: The Government plan to close the North Liverpool community justice centre, despite its success in bringing down crime. A short consultation was held over the summer. May we have a statement on that?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady might be interested to know that on the Tuesday that we return after the conference recess, the Ministry of Justice will be responding to questions. I shall draw the Department’s attention to the point that she has made—it might be able to respond in the meantime—but that might otherwise be an opportunity for her to raise that important constituency issue.

Philip Hollobone: In 2007, the High Court rejected a bid from a pupil to be allowed to wear her niqab in class. The staff powerfully argued that
	they needed to see her face to see whether she was paying attention, engaged in her work or distressed. Subsequent to that ruling, the Department for Education issued guidelines permitting schools and colleges to insist that they be able to see pupils’ faces at all times, and this week Birmingham Metropolitan college did just that. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Department for Education to reissue its guidance so that the public can see that Birmingham Metropolitan college has acted entirely within the rules and applied what most people in this country would regard as a common-sense policy with regard to the visibility of students?

Mr Speaker: I trust we can have a statement or a debate on the matter as well.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will raise the issue with the Department for Education, although I understand from his question that he supports the position that the Department has taken hitherto. I am sure it will be grateful for that. Indeed, that position is much in keeping with a general principle that head teachers responsible for education within colleges and schools should be able to make such decisions due to the effect on their institutions.

Robert Flello: When Fenton magistrates court closed, the building that housed it—the former Fenton town hall—was put up for sale by the Ministry of Justice, yet Fenton town hall was never bought by the Ministry or the Government, who never paid any rent for it, and the Ministry is seeking to profit from the sale of the building. May we have a debate in Government time on buildings such as Fenton town hall being put up for sale when no money was ever paid, in the hope that we achieve the transfer of the building back to the community from which it came?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment in detail on the case that he raises, although I will ask the Ministry of Justice to consider the points he has made. Generally speaking, the legislative steps taken by the Government to empower local people and local communities to identify properties of community value and to be able to intervene to secure them for community purposes have been much welcomed.

Tessa Munt: Two months ago in the Chamber, I raised the case of Nadejah Williams, a young woman with a rare form of colon cancer who had been refused life-saving CyberKnife treatment by NHS England. Last night, Nadejah was told the good news that NHS England had changed its mind and she can now be treated with Mount Vernon’s CyberKnife system. I thank Andy Lines from the Daily Mirror for doggedly pursuing her case and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for intervening personally and making NHS England see sense.
	May we have a debate on why six months of trauma and three appeals by Nadejah’s specialists occurred before that young woman was allowed her CyberKnife treatment, thereby ensuring that others do not suffer what can be critical delays to their treatment?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure the House will appreciate how she has pursued that case, and share her hope that successful pursuit of that treatment will be of great benefit to Ms Williams. I cannot promise a debate, but it is important for the NHS to be able to pursue innovative treatments. CyberKnife—a brand name—is a form of interventional radiotherapy, and other forms of interventional radiotherapy were agreed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to be effective. From my experience in these matters I know that, along with others, CyberKnife was increasingly being adopted across the NHS, and rightly so.

Nick Smith: Real wages for men have dropped in Blaenau Gwent by £30 a week. May we have a debate in Government time on how the Government’s two-nation policies have failed so many parts of the UK?

Andrew Lansley: What is clear is that the coalition Government are pursuing what I regard as a genuinely one-nation policy, and restoring the economic health of this country after the appalling circumstances in which it was left—I referred to that earlier—in a way that gives proper support to those in need and helps people back to work. The Work programme is among the most successful initiatives. As I said, people in work will inevitably find that across the whole economy we are not in a position to pay ourselves more than we earn, or to carry on doing so, as we did for a long time. As a country, however, we are increasingly earning our way, winning in the global race, getting contracts and exports, investing for the future, and putting in place infrastructure and business investment that will enable us to earn our way to rising living standards in the future.

Andrew Jones: In Harrogate and Knaresborough the number of those claiming jobseeker’s allowance has fallen by almost a third in a year, and as my right hon. Friend reminded the House earlier, 1.4 million private sector jobs have been created by businesses since 2010. May we have a debate to explore further that positive news about job creation?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His constituency in the north of England is a place where jobs are being created and businesses are operating successfully, and he and his constituents can take pride in what they are doing. Generally, it is right to say that there are 1.4 million more people employed in the private sector, and a record number of women in employment. Despite the inevitable and necessary fact that we reduced the deficit and constrained public spending, which led to more than 400,000 fewer public sector jobs, more than three private sector jobs have been created since the election for every public sector job lost.

Diana Johnson: Given widespread support for a sporting legacy from London 2012, may we have a debate on unfair local Government funding to northern cities that means lots of sporting facilities will close, possibly including those at Ennerdale, which is the only standard-size swimming pool for competitions in Hull?

Andrew Lansley: I will not comment on that point, but I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has scheduled a debate for Thursday 10 October on the funding of local authorities.

Alun Cairns: Michelle Inch is a constituent who contacted me two years ago when looking for help to set up a business from home. Two years later she now has permanent premises, and is importing, rebranding and sending products throughout the country. She did that with the help of the Prince’s Trust. May we have a debate on the Prince’s Trust and business support in general, to recognise the excellent support that His Royal Highness and the trust give to businesses?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think his experience, which he ably sets out, is reproduced in many constituencies across the country. I have often found inspiring the way that the Prince’s Trust has given hope, opportunity and support to young people whom the rest of the system would probably not have thought had potential. They do have potential, however, which is realised through the offices of the Prince’s Trust. The Government want to ensure that we do our bit, and today the Prime Minister will announce a further extension to the new enterprise allowance, which has already supported the establishment of 26,000 new businesses. That is complementary to work of organisations such as the Prince’s Trust, which has done such great work in the past and today.

Jim Shannon: The UK is an acknowledged world leader in research on and clinical treatment of rare disease. Will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate on the structure of the UK rare disease plan, which would encourage collaboration across the UK and permit Northern Ireland to participate in the decision-making process?

Andrew Lansley: I am proud that the first such rare disease plan was published when I was Secretary of State for Health. I know that my colleagues in the Department for Health regularly co-ordinate with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations, but I will ask them to what extent that involves working together on the rare disease plan.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on broadcasting and journalism. so that we might pay tribute to the former Gillingham grammar school boy, Sir David Frost, who was a great broadcast journalist and a great ambassador for Gillingham?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend and many others on both sides of the House will have mourned the passing of Sir David Frost. I remember not only his sense of humour but the incisiveness with which he conducted his journalism, which is a model for journalists across the world. He is much missed.

Pauline Latham: Since the 2010 general election, unemployment has fallen by 69% in my constituency, meaning that it is now less than 2%. Would the Leader of the House consider allowing time for a debate on how we can utilise world-class
	manufacturing businesses which export, such as Pretty Polly and Aristoc in my constituency and others all over Britain, to support economic growth and make sure that employment levels continue to fall?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend gives an impressive account of her constituency that not least demonstrates that this is not a recovery that is being generated in London and by financial services, but is happening across the country and is more broadly based, especially for manufacturing companies. The figures that she quotes from her constituency are very impressive and I am pleased to hear them.

David Nuttall: In April I asked for a statement on the case of Mr Haroon Aswat. Mr Aswat is wanted in the US as a co-conspirator of Abu Hamza, but the UK has been prevented from deporting him by the European Court of Human Rights. This week, the Court announced it will not even hear the Government’s appeal. It is no wonder that so many people think it is now time that we withdrew from the European convention. May we please now have a statement?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that we are disappointed by the panel’s decision not to refer the case to the Grand Chamber. The Home Secretary does not believe that extradition would breach Haroon Aswat’s human rights, and she will now consider what options are available in this case. I am sure the House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage, but I know that the Home Secretary will keep the House informed.

Jason McCartney: Many young people in my constituency have been taking up jobs and apprenticeships with local food and drink producers, and this Sunday it is the Totally Locally street market in Slaithwaite, with the Holmfirth food and drink festival at the end of the month. May we have a debate on the importance to local economies of food and drink producers and the benefits of shopping locally?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I know that many hon. Members have brought local food and drink producers here as part of a constituency presentation day, which amply illustrates that point. We recognise the benefits that marketing of regional and local food can bring to producers and consumers alike, and shoppers increasingly want to know the provenance of the food they buy and how it has been produced.

Alan Reid: Three million people have chosen to collect benefits or pensions at the post office through a Post Office card account, but the contract between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Post Office is due to end in 18 months’ time. It is important for those 3 million people and for rural post
	offices that either POCA or an alternative Post Office product continues after 2015. Time is short, so may we have an urgent debate on the subject?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend asks a good and timely question. He may know that the Department for Work and Pensions contract with Post Office Ltd to provide the Post Office card account expires in March 2015. The DWP, Post Office Ltd and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have begun detailed discussions concerning the future needs of customers beyond that date, to ensure that access to pensions or other welfare benefits is not put at risk. He will also understand that although there is the option to extend the contract for up to two years, the services provided under the contract fall within procurement regulations and would need to be subject to open competition following any period of extension.

Amber Rudd: We have an unacceptable situation in Rye, where two giants of the supermarket world co-own one site on which they cannot reach an agreement. For 10 years, my constituents have had to wait to see who can develop it. It is still undeveloped, causing blight and irritation to the whole town. May we have a debate on how to persuade these large corporate giants to act perhaps in the best interest of the community?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point for her constituency. She might seek to raise the issue on the Adjournment at some point, but having raised it in business questions, she would be right to take the opportunity to say to the companies concerned that while it is their decision, she and her local authority might be best placed to try and broker a solution. I encourage the companies to get together, as she asks, and see whether they can do something that is in the best interest of her community.

Peter Bone: Following the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), can the Leader of the House make a statement confirming that in a Division a Member would not be allowed to cover their face—in fact, they must raise their head and lower it as they go through the Lobby?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises a point that is technically a matter for the Speaker, and not a matter for me as Leader of the House. I do not think we need a debate. Unless the Speaker advises me otherwise, I think the rules of the House are clear that a Member must identify themselves to the Tellers in such a way.

Mr Speaker: I think we are clear on that point. There is no requirement for a debate on the matter, but we are grateful, as always, to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). We now proceed to the statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Syria

William Hague: In recent days there have been several major developments relating to Syria. I thought it would help the House if I provided an update on those developments before the House rises.
	I will cover our objectives in three crucial areas: our response to the humanitarian crisis; our efforts on the political process, including relations with the Syrian National Coalition; and our support for a strong international response to the use of chemical weapons.
	First, we are determined to encourage and lead international efforts to alleviate human suffering in Syria and the region. The United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral donor to the humanitarian relief effort after the United States. The Prime Minister’s announcement at the G20 in St Petersburg of an additional £52 million in assistance brings our total support to £400 million so far, and we are encouraging other countries to do much more. As a result of the meeting convened by the Prime Minister during the G20, Canada, Italy and Qatar have made new funding commitments, and 10 countries agreed to lobby for unfettered humanitarian access for international humanitarian organisations inside Syria, and to provide medicines, contamination tents, and medical training against chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
	Secondly, we remain committed to helping bring about a political settlement. The basis for a political solution was agreed in Geneva last year, namely the formation of a transitional Government, with full executive powers, drawn from the regime and the opposition, by mutual consent. We are in close touch with our partners about convening a second Geneva conference to make that a reality. It is absolutely clear that no lasting or meaningful political solution can occur without the moderate Syrian opposition. The Syrian National Coalition has committed itself to a secular, democratic and pluralist Syria that ensures equal rights for all Syrians. That is a vision that the whole House and our country can support.
	Last Thursday I held talks in London with the president and senior leadership of the Syrian National Coalition. We are providing more than £20 million in non-lethal support to the opposition, including 4x4 vehicles, body armour, generators, communications equipment, water purification kits and equipment to protect against chemical weapons attacks. This includes 5,000 escape hoods, detector paper, and a stock of nerve agent pre-treatment tablets which have already been delivered. President al-Jarba, of the national coalition, and I discussed ways the UK could provide further non-lethal support to the opposition to help save lives, alleviate humanitarian suffering, provide services in areas no longer under regime control, and prepare for Geneva II.
	This support is made all the more urgent by the appalling crimes being committed in Syria. The UN Human Rights Council’s independent international commission of inquiry issued a harrowing report yesterday describing crimes against humanity and war crimes being committed by the regime and its forces, including indiscriminate shelling, sieges, massacres, murder, torture, rape and sexual violence, enforced disappearances, execution
	and pillage; and serious violations committed by some extremist anti-regime armed groups, which we also condemn.
	On top of this, we have now seen mass murder inflicted by the regime’s use of chemical weapons. So our third objective is to ensure a strong international response, so that these barbaric weapons are not used again and that those responsible are held to account. The House debated this subject on 29 August, and we have made it clear that we respect the view of the House.
	The UN team is expected to report on its investigation into the 21 August attack early next week. We await their findings, but there should be no doubt in this House that all the evidence continues to point in one direction: the Government confirmed last week that UK experts at Porton Down have tested samples from a victim reportedly treated as a result of that attack. Both the clothing and soil samples tested positive for sarin.
	Human Rights Watch issued a report this week stating that, based on its own independent evidence and assessment,
	“Human Rights Watch finds that Syrian government forces were almost certainly responsible for the August 21 attacks, and that a weapons-grade nerve agent was delivered during the attack using specially designed rocket delivery systems.”
	It went on to say:
	“The scale and coordinated nature of the two attacks…the presence of government-controlled potential launching sites within range of the targets; the pattern of other recent alleged chemical weapon attacks against opposition-held areas using the same 330 mm rocket delivery system; and the documented possession of the 140 mm and 330 mm rocket systems able to deliver chemical weapons in the government arsenal—all point towards Syrian government responsibility for the attacks.”
	The international consensus that the regime was responsible is growing. During the G20, 11 nations, including the UK, signed a statement condemning the regime’s use of chemical weapons and supporting efforts by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons use. A week later, that statement has now been signed by 25 countries.
	On Saturday I attended the EU Foreign Ministers meeting in Vilnius, which unanimously agreed that there was strong evidence of regime culpability, and that
	“in the face of this cynical use of chemical weapons, the international community cannot remain idle”.
	This growing international pressure, including the threat of military action by the United States, has had an impact. On Monday, I hosted Secretary Kerry for detailed discussions on the way forward. On the same day, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, announced that Russia would urge the Syrian regime to sign up to a proposal which would place their chemical weapons stocks under international control for destruction. In response, the regime announced that it supported the initiative and was ready to co-operate, and that it intended to join the chemical weapons convention, open up its sites and give up its chemical weapons.
	Given its track record, any commitment made by the Syrian regime must be treated with great caution. This is a regime that has lied for years about possessing chemical weapons, that still denies that it has used them, and that refused for four months to allow UN inspectors into Syria. Nevertheless, as the Prime Minister has said, we have to take this proposal seriously and we have to test its sincerity. If the Syrian regime verifiably gave up its chemical weapons stockpiles, this would
	obviously be a major step forward. We agree with President Obama that this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force. Intensive discussions are now taking place about how to achieve this, and Secretary Kerry is meeting Foreign Minister Lavrov in Geneva today to discuss the proposal.
	Our diplomats in New York are in close discussion about a draft Security Council resolution, and the five permanent members of the Security Council met for consultations last night. A resolution must establish a binding commitment for the Syrian regime to give up its chemical weapons within a specific time frame. We will hold further discussions in the Security Council once the UN inspectors have reported. The United Kingdom will make every effort to negotiate an enforceable agreement that credibly, reliably and promptly places the regime’s chemical weapons stocks under international control for destruction.
	The House should be in no doubt of the scale of the challenge and the immense practical difficulties that would need to be overcome. It would require the genuine co-operation of a regime that denied until recently that it possessed these weapons and has used them ruthlessly against its own people on at least 14 occasions, killing many hundreds of people, including women and children. The regime has a large number of sites—possibly the largest stock of chemical weapons possessed by any nation in the world—in numerous different locations in a country that is a contested battlefield. We would need to have confidence that all chemical weapons had been identified and secured and that they could not fall into the wrong hands.
	These issues can all be overcome with sufficient international unity and good will, and provided there is a complete change of approach by the Assad regime to all its past practices and deceptions. Therefore, we will approach these negotiations with determination and resolve, knowing that if successful it would be an important breakthrough, but that overcoming all these issues will not be easy and that in the meantime thousands of Syrians are dying every month from conventional weapons in this worsening conflict.
	It is abundantly clear that this diplomatic opening would not have come about had the international community shown complacency or disregard for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and that pressure on the regime must be maintained. At the same time, we will continue to do all we can to alleviate humanitarian suffering and save lives, we will support Syria’s moderate opposition, and we will make every effort to advance a diplomatic solution to a conflict that has gone on for far too long.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and indeed for advance sight of it this morning. Coming to the House ahead of the parliamentary recess acknowledges that there are strongly held opinions and deeply felt concerns on both sides of the House about events still unfolding in Syria.
	I welcome the Government’s steps to provide vital humanitarian support to those affected by the conflict and the continuing efforts to secure additional funds
	from the international community. Those humanitarian efforts are necessary but insufficient to alleviate the suffering. The level of ongoing violence in Syria today represents the greatest diplomatic failure of the international community in the 21st century. We support the Government’s continuing efforts to convene a second Geneva conference, but we remain of the view that a contact group could assist in that endeavour, given the present difficulties in securing the attendance of the warring parties.
	Members on both sides of the House stand united in their revulsion at and abhorrence and condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in this ongoing and bloody conflict. It is a conflict that means that Syria is disintegrating as a nation state. That disintegration risks destabilising not only Syria’s immediate neighbours but the region as a whole.
	Two weeks ago, the votes of this House on Syria reflected real concerns that the country was being pushed too quickly towards military action, on a timetable set elsewhere, without due process being followed and the necessary steps being taken. Moments after the Government motion was lost—a rejection of the Government’s rushed judgment in relation to the use of British military force without precedent since perhaps the case of Lord North in 1782—the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and read from a sheet of paper the following words:
	“It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly.”—[Official Report, 29 August 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1555.]
	The suggestion has since been made that the decisive voice influencing the Prime Minister’s apparently predetermined decision to rule out the use of British military force in Syria if the Government motion was lost was not that of the Foreign Secretary but that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, in his capacity as Foreign Secretary, can the right hon. Gentleman offer the House any examples of circumstances in which the Government will seek to come back to the House on the issue of the use of British military force in Syria? The Foreign Secretary has just told the House:
	“The United Kingdom will make every effort to negotiate an enforceable agreement”,
	so he clearly agrees with me that it is preferable, if it is possible, to remove the threat of chemical weapons from Syria without having to resort to the use of force.
	Two days after those votes were cast in the House of Commons, President Obama specifically referenced the British Government’s failure to secure the support of Parliament when explaining his decision to delay the use of force in Syria and indeed to take the matter to Congress, so I ask the Foreign Secretary this question. Is it not abundantly clear that if the Government’s motion had been passed by this House two weeks ago, the United States military force would in all likelihood have already been used in Syria and the diplomatic path that he now advocates with such conviction would never have been reached?
	None of us has any doubt about the murderous nature of the Assad regime, and no one should have any illusions about the fact that since the start of this conflict the Russians have provided not only weaponry
	but significant diplomatic cover to the Assad regime. The challenge confronting Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov today in Geneva is indeed daunting. Their task is to find ways to evidence that a goal that is desirable is also doable. That would mean agreeing a credible plan in circumstances not just of low trust but of violent conflict; a means to identify, verify, secure and ultimately remove those weapons from Assad’s possession, with the final goal of destroying them altogether. While these critical negotiations are taken forward, the UK must continue its work to help alleviate the suffering and engage constructively with partners in the Security Council.

William Hague: There is strong agreement about everything I said in my statement, judging by what the right hon. Gentleman said, although disagreement about one thing that was not in the statement, which I will come back to.
	I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that there is strong unity across the House on the importance of our humanitarian contribution. He said that everything that we and other countries were doing was necessary but not sufficient to alleviate the suffering. That, sadly, is true, because only the end of the conflict will truly alleviate or give us the opportunity to alleviate the suffering of millions of people. He rightly welcomed the diplomatic efforts that we continue to make on bringing about a second Geneva conference. There is no shortage of discussion in the international community about how to do this. We have regular discussions with all our colleagues on the Security Council, including Russia, about how to bring it about. Ideas are floated about different diplomatic groups that might bring this about, but the essence of the problem remains that we need all appropriate parties to be ready to fulfil what was agreed at Geneva. There is no evidence that the regime is in a position to do that as things stand, but we will continue to work on that.
	I take what the right hon. Gentleman said as agreement in the House on the approach to the negotiations now taking place about an international agreement on chemical weapons. He said that a credible plan was needed in an atmosphere of low trust and violent conflict. That is correct, and it strikes the same note as the one that I was striking—that we must take this seriously and make every effort to make it successful, but that to be successful it has to be an enforceable agreement that credibly, reliably and promptly deals with this issue and places the regime’s chemical weapons stocks under international control for destruction.
	I need to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about only one thing that he said, which is a rather extraordinary claim that none of this would have come about had the Opposition not voted against the Government motion two weeks ago, which is a rather self-obsessed view of world developments. It is like the story of the cockerel who thought its crowing brought about the dawn. He will remember that the motion we put before the House said that, far from being in a rush, the Government would await the report of the UN inspectors, which has not yet come out, before taking any military action, that they would make every effort to secure a Security Council resolution, and that there would be a second vote. That is the basis on which the United Kingdom
	was proceeding, and there is no sign at all that this development would have taken place had Governments around the world not been debating those issues and had the United States not been debating whether to take military action.

Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what progress is being made at the United Nations to secure a resolution for unfettered cross-border access for the humanitarian agencies? He will be aware that most of the UN aid is going through Damascus. That means that aid is reaching the areas held by the Government but not reaching the areas held by the rebels. As winter comes on, the danger of starvation and a medical emergency will increase unless the situation is resolved.

William Hague: This is a very important issue. We are, one way or another, getting aid into all 14 governorates of Syria and into many different parts of Syria. However, the regime has often sought to interfere with that aid and has denied access to some areas. It has even reportedly engaged in removing medical supplies and preventing them from getting to areas where its own people are needing urgent medical attention. The answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is that we have not yet secured agreement on a resolution or action on this at the United Nations Security Council. All attempts so far to agree in the Security Council on statements or resolutions that require the Assad regime to perform any particular actions, including on the humanitarian side, have been opposed by Russia and by China. That does not mean that we should give up on it. At the G20 the Prime Minister discussed with other countries returning to this issue at the United Nations if necessary, and we are standing ready to do so.

Peter Hain: May I wish the Foreign Secretary every success in the attempt to remove chemical weapons from Syria? I am sure he will acknowledge, however, that they account for just 1% of all the casualties in this awful civil war. Will he use his influence to persuade the whole of the opposition, a significant part of which is opposed to the process now going on in the United Nations to resolve the chemical weapons issue, to come to the negotiating table, because it takes two to tango? It will be difficult enough getting Assad and the Russians and the Iranians lining up; it is essential that he use his influence to get the opposition willing to negotiate as well.

William Hague: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is very important that the regime and the national coalition are ready to negotiate in a second Geneva conference on the basis of what was agreed at Geneva last year. A large part of the discussions that I had with the national coalition last week was that they must be ready to do that at any time, and that their own dissociation from the use of chemical weapons must be made as clear as possible. They received that message very, very strongly from me last week, and they will continue to do so.

Richard Ottaway: When the House debated this matter in August in our response to the chemical weapons attacks in Damascus, we were working on the basis of an extremely short assessment
	by the Joint Intelligence Committee. Since then, the USA has published a detailed analysis, as have the French and others, and Human Rights Watch has concluded in a very detailed report that the regime was almost certainly responsible for the attacks. To take a requirement cited by the Leader of the Opposition, does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence against the Syrian Government is now compelling?

William Hague: The evidence is compelling. In my view, it has always been compelling because, as was clear even at the time of our debate two weeks ago, there was no plausible alternative explanation. It is true, of course, that as time goes on and medical and soil samples are analysed, the evidence gets even stronger. The actual evidence is there, so yes, it is compelling. We now await the report of the UN inspectors. As I have explained before in the House, they do not have a mandate to attribute blame, but of course we hope that their findings will nevertheless be of significance.

Meg Munn: France has said that it wants a resolution under chapter VII of the UN charter that threatens serious consequences if Syria breaches conditions. Does the Foreign Secretary support that position?

William Hague: We are working closely with France, and with the United States, on a text for the Security Council. Last night we discussed with Russia and China how to set about a statement and resolution at the Security Council. As is widely known, the French draft that has been put forward is a chapter VII resolution.
	I think it is best at this stage for us to be clear about what a resolution must achieve, rather than set bottom lines and red lines in every direction. The test, as I have set out before, should be a binding commitment for the Syrian regime to give up its chemical weapons within a specific time frame, and an agreement that is credible and reliable and that promptly places these chemical weapon stocks under international control. The main thing is to have a resolution and agreement at the Security Council that fulfils those objectives. We will keep discussing that with other countries.

Alan Beith: I welcome the efforts of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary over recent days. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that achieving international control of Syria’s chemical weapons will require not only the effective use by Russia of its influence in Syria, but truce, safe passage and ceasefire arrangements, which necessarily link progress on this vital issue with political settlement in Syria?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention, as I did in my statement, to the immense practical difficulties involved. Much of Syria is a contested battlefield and chemical weapons are held in numerous locations. Those sites are, of course, all in areas controlled by the regime, not the opposition, so this requires the full co-operation of the regime, and that, in turn, requires the full diplomatic involvement and pressure of Russia. The coming days will test whether they will be forthcoming.

Glenda Jackson: We must all pray that there will be an international agreement ensuring the peaceful removal of these weapons from
	Syria. The Foreign Secretary has referred to practical difficulties, one of which is safe access and egress, not only for the inspectors, but for the weapons themselves. Will the British Government argue very strongly that if such safe routes are set in place they can be used for the delivery of humanitarian aid to the 6 million people in Syria, who the most recent report states are dying at a rate of 80 to 150 a day from conventional weapons?

William Hague: That is a good point. It will be very important, exactly as the hon. Lady says, for there to be safe access. That might open up other opportunities, but it remains to be seen. It is very important that all our work to improve humanitarian access continues in parallel with that to deal with the chemical weapons. We do not yet have an agreement—we are still some away from one—on how and whether this can be done, so I think the hon. Lady is getting ahead of where we are in negotiations, but this is a question that we will certainly keep in mind.

Tim Loughton: Whatever side of the argument we are on, I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that things have moved on substantially since the debate a couple of weeks ago, not least with the emergence of Russia as an active player, rather than a constant blocker of any settlement. What does he think has brought about Russia’s change of heart, although we are yet to see the genuineness of its actions as opposed to its words?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right that Russia’s proposals on Monday were a very important change of approach. That is particularly apparent to me, given that I have on several occasions over the past couple of years discussed with Russian representatives whether there is a way of working together on the chemical weapons in Syria. It has always been the Russian position hitherto that the Assad regime would not use its chemical weapons—it did not expect it to use them. I think that the mounting evidence that the regime has used those weapons and the discussions, particularly those in the United States, about whether to take military action have produced a change in the Russian position. Whatever the motives and reasons for that, we should nevertheless welcome it and work with it, which is what we are now seeking to do.

Michael Weir: The Foreign Secretary has said that under the Geneva agreement, there should be a transitional Government
	“drawn from regime and opposition by mutual consent”.
	It has been reported that the Syrian National Coalition has said that it will not deal with some figures in the regime. Will there be any preconditions on who may attend a second Geneva convention to try to establish such a transitional Government?

William Hague: The mutual consent clause refers to the outcome of the creation of a transitional Government. In our view, it should not refer to who comes to a second Geneva conference. It will be up to the regime and the opposition—the national coalition—to nominate their representatives for the conference. They will need a significant degree of freedom in doing that, but they will have to bear it in mind, when nominating their
	representatives, that they want a successful outcome. Mutual consent is about the outcome, not about setting preconditions on who can come.

Phillip Lee: With reference to our ongoing humanitarian response, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the creation of a Department for International Development-funded, land-based British mobile army surgical hospital capability could play a significant part in our response to the Syrian crisis and to any future civil war that might afflict the middle east?

William Hague: Through DFID’s work, we make a huge contribution to people’s medical welfare. DFID already provides money for about 300,000 medical consultations and a wide range of medical supplies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is constantly reviewing and updating how best we can help. She will have heard my hon. Friend’s question.

David Winnick: Can the Foreign Secretary explain why in 2012, a year after the civil war in Syria started, a UK firm was granted a licence to sell industrial chemical products that, according to the Defence Secretary, could be used in processes to produce poisonous gases? According to the Business Secretary, although the EU sanctions were fortunately tightened, some of those products had already been sent to Syria, despite what the Defence Secretary told me on 2 September. Perhaps I could have an explanation and an apology from the Defence Secretary.

William Hague: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that no such apology is needed. He knows the position on this matter. The licences were revoked before the chemicals were exported. There is no evidence that the chemicals concerned in those licences were exported to Syria. Licences were granted in earlier years under the previous Government, whom he supported. In fairness to them, there is no evidence that those goods, if they were exported, were used for anything other than their declared commercial purpose. When those two things are taken together, there is no evidence that any such exports have contributed to Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

Duncan Hames: We all want to see chemical weapons removed from Syria’s civil war. However, does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the chemical weapons attacks were unleashed without the authority of the Assad regime, it cannot be credible that the regime can put all of Syria’s chemical weapons beyond use?

William Hague: That is a good point. That is the test. As I set out in my statement, to make this idea work, we need the genuine co-operation of a regime that has denied that it has chemical weapons and that has used them against its own people. We are looking for its genuine co-operation in ensuring that the chemical stocks are placed under international control for destruction. We have to approach that with great caution. The situation has changed for the many reasons that we have
	just discussed and particularly because of the threat of military action by the United States. We now have to test to the full whether the Syrian regime means what it says on this issue.

Geoffrey Robinson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming so promptly, as he regularly does on these matters, to report to the House. I congratulate the Government on increasing and sustaining their large humanitarian effort to relieve the terrible suffering of the 6 million homeless people who are effectively refugees in their own country and in the surrounding area. I do not want to dwell on the problems—they are nothing compared with what would happen if military action went ahead, let me remind him—but is he aware that one of the problems is the composition and attitude of the Syrian national opposition alliance? Can he tell us, on a narrow front, who, to the best of our knowledge, was responsible for the terrible atrocity and pillaging that took place in the Christian communities, where some of the remaining people still speak a form of Aramaic? Who, in his best judgment, was responsible for that?

William Hague: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks. On his specific question, it is very hard for us to know, from outside the country, who is responsible for each terrible atrocity. The UN commission of inquiry is clear that atrocities have been committed on both sides—by both pro-regime and anti-regime forces. It is clear that they are predominantly committed by regime forces, and we must not lose sight of that. Are there extremist anti-regime forces that also commit atrocities? Yes, there are. In our judgment, that reinforces the need to support the National Coalition and its allies, who are committed to a non-sectarian, secular, democratic pluralist Syria. That is why we have to bolster them, given the terrible actions carried out by others.

Robert Halfon: Following the question from the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), it is worth remembering that between 2004 and 2010 the previous Government allowed chemical weapons to go to Syria with chemical weapons licences, and invited President Assad to Britain in 2002 to see the Queen. I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work he is doing on the humanitarian aid going into Syria, and for the work by organisations such as Save the Children. If all the measures he has set out today do not work, and, God forbid, there is another serious chemical attack by the Syrian Government on their citizens, what will be the British Government’s response?

William Hague: To be clear about licences in previous years that pre-date the current conflict and were granted under the previous Government, they were for cosmetics and health care products with legitimate commercial use. As I said, there is no evidence that they were misused, and the licences were rigorously assessed against the relevant criteria. The fact that they were granted under the previous Government is something that the hon. Gentleman and others should bear in mind, as my hon. Friend says. We have to try to ensure that the full range of policies I outlined succeed. Of course, there are many disturbing scenarios by which the crisis in Syria could become even worse than it is today, but if it
	does so, the international community and this House will have to consider our response. Our emphasis now is on making these policies succeed.

Derek Twigg: If diplomacy and the threat of military action fails, does the Foreign Secretary agree that air strikes, a no-fly zone and sending missiles to various sites in Syria will not, on their own, secure or remove chemical weapons? They could, in fact, give an advantage to the opposition and subsequently fall into the hands of extremists. Is it not the case that to secure the chemical weapons sites, any strike has to go along with a significant ground force?

William Hague: No, I would not agree with that, and President Obama made it clear in his address to the United States on Tuesday that he is not now, or at any stage, proposing the deployment of ground forces in Syria. That is not something we have proposed or considered at any stage. I think it is possible to deter the use of chemical weapons without the deployment of ground forces, but the House made its decision and we respect that decision. The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the Prime Minister’s statement in response to that. I can assure him that it was agreed collectively by the Government, including by the Foreign Secretary.

Nigel Adams: Will the Foreign Secretary expand on what role British diplomats, particularly UK representatives at the UN, are currently playing?

William Hague: They are playing a very energetic role. We are fortunate to have an outstanding team at the UN, which has often succeeded against the odds in a whole series of negotiations on UN Security Council resolutions. On this issue, they have, depressingly, often been blocked, including by actual vetoes, by Russia and China, but they are working hard with the other permanent members of the Security Council. A meeting took place in New York yesterday afternoon, and there will of course be further meetings in which they will be intensively involved in the coming days.

Katy Clark: Given the contradictory statements from the Government on the issue of chemicals being exported to Syria—seen in responses to parliamentary questions and in the correspondence between the Business Secretary and the Committee on Arms Export Controls—will the Foreign Secretary undertake to do everything he can to ensure that there is full transparency, including over the naming of the British and the Syrian companies involved and the quantities and particular form of chemicals exported, so that we can learn lessons for the future?

William Hague: The Business Secretary and I are always very much in favour of tremendous transparency on these things, and we make an annual appearance at the Committee on Arms Export Controls. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government also regularly publish the details of such licences and exports. Let me reiterate that the licences granted in the most recent period were revoked, and there is no evidence that exports took place. In the earlier period when licences were granted under the previous Government, they related to cosmetics and health care products for legitimate commercial use,
	and we have no evidence that they were not used for that purpose. That is the position. All the normal transparency about these issues will apply. The record shows that the system works, that we have strong export controls in this country, and that when licences are revoked, the system works, too. Our strong system should be supported across the House.

Philip Hollobone: The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that Syria has “possibly the largest stock of chemical weapons possessed by any nation in the world”. Given the size of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, its geographic dispersal and the highly mobile nature of most of it, and given the difficulties of identifying and verifying it, what capability does the UN have to dismantle such a large stockpile of weaponry, and will it not inevitably involve the deployment of a very large number of civilian personnel in-country?

William Hague: It is a big task, and my hon. Friend is quite right to point to it. There are no reliable or precise estimates of the quantities—some estimates have suggested 1,000 tonnes—and these chemical stocks are likely to be held in very different states. Some may be completely mixed and ready for use, while others may be precursors that could be mixed at a later stage, so it is a very complex matter. There is considerable expertise in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons—expertise does exist in the world—but he is quite right that this would be a big exercise, involving a lot of people. That is why, as I have suggested, there are many difficulties in our way, but we are determined to test to the full whether this can work.

Paul Flynn: The Foreign Secretary’s capacity for self-delusion seems almost infinite. Is he not proud that we, this House, led the world—including American popular opinion—in our decision to take not the easy course of an instant military strike, but the difficult and painstaking course of diplomacy and peace building? Did not Iraq and Helmand teach us that thoughtlessly taking the military course leads to great suffering and the loss of soldiers’ and civilian lives?

William Hague: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he was opposing an immediate military strike when he voted against the Government’s motion, he is deluding himself to the most extraordinary extent. That motion called for a second vote, for the House to await the findings of the United Nations inspectors, and for an attempt to be made to raise the matter strongly at the United Nations Security Council. I think that the self-delusion lies with him.

Rehman Chishti: It has often been said that the international community will hold the Assad regime accountable for the massacre on 21 August in which than 1,400 people were killed. Is that still the case, and, if so, how will the international community hold the regime accountable?
	I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to Sir Mark Lyall Grant, our fantastic ambassador to the United Nations, whom I know well, and who does a great job.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right: Sir Mark Lyall Grant does a terrific job at the UN, and is working hard on this issue now.
	The question of accountability is very important, not just in relation to chemical weapons, but in relation to so much of what has happened in Syria over the past two and a half years. I think that, in the United Kingdom, we would generally be able to agree that the International Criminal Court should address it in due course, or that the Syrians should be able to address it themselves in their own country, with adequate procedures, in the future. However, we cannot get that option through the Security Council at present, because, again, it would be blocked by Russia.

Kevin Brennan: The Prime Minister said that he “got it” two weeks ago when the House of Commons voted, but, following the Foreign Secretary’s remarks today, I am not sure what message he received from that vote. Does he think that it was irrelevant in relation to subsequent events?

William Hague: I think we are very clear about what we are doing here, and I hope the whole House is united on it. In the last few days circumstances have changed significantly, with the Russian position changing. I take it from what was said by the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are agreed in the House—and there should be strong unity on this—that we should test to establish whether what we are proposing can be successfully brought about. It needs to be credible, it needs to be reliable, and it needs to be prompt. The change in the position has come about because of the international pressure over this issue—because of the pressure on the Assad regime—which includes the debate about military action in the United States. That is what has brought about the change in the Russian position.

Oliver Colvile: While I welcome the fact that the Russians have come to the table as far as a diplomatic solution is concerned, and their donation of—I understand— £20 million in overseas aid, we cannot forget that they have been partly responsible for the arming of the Assad regime. Can my right hon. Friend tell me how much money we are putting in, and what it is being used for?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the arming of the regime. If he is asking about the money that we are giving to the opposition—to the National Coalition—I can tell him that it amounts to more than £20 million so far, for non-lethal equipment. It is predominantly equipment that saves lives: for instance, water purification kits, generators, communications equipment that makes it easier for people to find out about regime attacks, and body armour. I think that, together with our humanitarian work, shows that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of the attempt to save lives and alleviate suffering in Syria.

Clive Efford: It is the duty of every Member of Parliament to ensure that every diplomatic avenue has been exhausted before we put our service people in harm’s way, or put civilians at risk. It is disingenuous of the Foreign Secretary to suggest that Parliament was recalled with the intention of our taking
	military action within days, and to dismiss the vote in the House of Commons and its significance. There is now an opportunity for diplomatic discussions to take place, but is the Foreign Secretary concerned about the possibility that talk of military action will give one side or the other the impression that it may gain an advantage if military action goes ahead? Has he considered what the implications of that are for the success of the diplomatic discussions?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman needs to catch up with events. There was no proposition about military action in my statement today. That is not what the Government are proposing. All our efforts are aimed at relieving humanitarian suffering and pursuing a diplomatic track. Nor have I suggested at any moment that the vote of the House of Commons was insignificant. I said that the Government fully respected the vote of the House of Commons. He should not put words into my mouth, and he should catch up with what is going on in the world.

Stephen Mosley: The longer the Syrian civil war goes on, the more powerful the extremist elements of the opposition become. We heard from the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) about attacks on the Syrian Christian community. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says that we want to support the Syrian National Coalition to make sure that more moderate voices are heard and remain dominant. May I push him to say what we are doing to make sure that those moderate voices remain dominant?

William Hague: We do that through the support that we give to the Syrian National Coalition. I set out to other hon. Friends a moment ago the range of the assistance that we give to the National Coalition, which is to save lives, to help it to function and operate, and to give it every possible diplomatic support in pursuing a course that is moderate, democratic, non-sectarian and pluralistic with respect to the future of Syria, and those are things which it greatly values and for which it is very grateful to the United Kingdom. Of course, it has often asked for additional support, including for lethal support from other countries. We have taken no decision to provide that, but we will continue to look at the additional support that we can give it.

Louise Ellman: Is the Foreign Secretary concerned that despite ongoing efforts, chemical weapons could be moved to Hezbollah in Lebanon?

William Hague: It is one of the great dangers of any country possessing chemical weapons that they could be moved to somebody else, including organisations that might be prepared to use them. I have no evidence that that has happened, so for the moment I think we can be reassuring about that, but any programme for the destruction of the chemical weapons or for securing the chemical weapons of Syria must bear in mind the risk of them falling into the wrong hands along the way. That therefore places the great premium that all of us in the House are placing on this process if it can be agreed and be credible, reliable and enforceable.

Andrew McDonald: I am relatively new here and I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary can explain something to me because I am puzzled. We were called back some weeks ago. If military action was not imminent, why on earth were we called back?

William Hague: As the Prime Minister made very clear at the time, because we wanted to consult the House at the earliest opportunity about a huge crisis. We did consult the House and the House gave an answer to that in not approving the Government motion, but that is why the House was recalled. Hon. Members have often advocated recalling the House in order to debate something at an early opportunity. Despite being new, the hon. Gentleman might find that he is doing that at some stage in the future.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Prior to any action taking place, what discussion has he had with other Governments in the region, in particular Israel, who have serious concerns about chemical weapons?

William Hague: We will want to consult all nations in the region. Israel has long-standing concerns, of course, about Syria’s chemical weapons stocks, and for very good reason. I believe that it and, I hope, all nations in the region would be supportive of a reliable, credible agreement for the securing and destruction of those weapons stocks, but it will be important for the permanent members of the Security Council and others to consult all the nations in the region.

Royal Mail

Michael Fallon: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the future of Royal Mail.
	This is an important day for Royal Mail, its employees and its customers. This morning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid a written ministerial statement before the House reporting that the Government have made a formal announcement of our intention to float Royal Mail on the premium segment of the London stock exchange. This follows the report and the statement by my right hon. Friend to the House on 10 July setting out our plans to conduct an initial public offering of Royal Mail shares during this financial year.
	The sale of shares will complete the final part of the Government’s reform of the postal sector, which Parliament debated and decided over two years ago. The overall objective of our reform is to continue to secure the universal postal service—the six-days-a-week, same-price-goes-anywhere service—which is vital to our economy. We have already put in place a proper regulatory framework and given Ofcom stronger powers to take the action necessary to protect the universal service. We have taken on Royal Mail’s historical pension liabilities, which were crippling the company’s financial position.
	Our reforms, together with the hard work of employees in modernising the business, have put Royal Mail on the road to sustainable health. But under the restrictions of public ownership, its core mail business has lurched between profit and loss and has made a loss in five of the past 12 years. It has lost more than £1 billion, and during that period some 50,000 jobs were lost.
	The sale of shares will give Royal Mail the commercial freedom it needs to succeed in a fully liberalised, competitive market. It will give the company future access to the private sector capital it needs for investment and to seize the opportunities for growth, such as increasing parcel volumes arising from the boom in online shopping, a market now estimated to be worth £76 billion. It will give Royal Mail commercial confidence, free from Whitehall interference.
	As set out in this morning’s announcement of the intention to float, shares will be made available to institutions and members of the public through intermediaries or via direct application to the Government. When the public offering goes ahead, 10% of the shares will be allocated to around 150,000 eligible Royal Mail employees for free through an employee share scheme. Through that scheme, the Government will be delivering in full on the commitment to employees that Parliament made two years ago. It will be the largest employee share scheme of any major privatisation for 30 years.
	The Government will take forward the sale and Royal Mail will publish its prospectus in the coming weeks. We will retain flexibility on the precise timetable, which will be announced at a later stage, just as we will retain flexibility around the size of the stake to be sold, but we intend to dispose of a majority of the shares in the company, taking into account shares sold and the 10% of shares that will be made available to employees through the share scheme. The final size of the stake sold through the public offering will be influenced by
	market conditions, investor demand and our objective of ensuring that value for money for the taxpayer is achieved.
	I and Royal Mail’s management fully recognise and understand the work force’s natural apprehensions about the sale. I have continued to meet the union regularly over the past year to discuss those concerns. I want to reassure employees that a change of Royal Mail’s ownership will not trigger any change in their terms and conditions. The Communication Workers Union will continue to be their recognised representative and their pensions will continue to be governed by the trustees.
	As part of a three-year agreement, Royal Mail is also prepared to give legally binding assurances on: the continuation of a predominantly full-time work force; a commitment to provide and enhance existing services to customers using the current work force, with no change to the current structure of the company in relation to those services; and no additional outsourcing of services. Royal Mail and the union are discussing those assurances, along with a new pay deal and reform proposals on the pension fund. I do not believe that industrial action will help the situation, and it will certainly not prevent the sale going forward.
	Following last week’s debate on the postal services in rural areas, I want to reassure the House once again that a change in Royal Mail’s ownership does not, and cannot, trigger any change in the provision of the universal postal service.
	As universal service provider, Royal Mail will continue to be obliged to deliver to urban and rural areas alike, six days a week, at the same affordable prices. Changes to the uniform nature of that service would require new primary legislation. The Government have no plans for any such changes. Changes to the universal service’s minimum requirements, which include free services for the blind and services to urban and rural areas alike, can be made only by affirmative resolutions in both Houses. The Government have no plans for such changes. Any suggestion that the privatisation of Royal Mail will lead to changes in the universal service are therefore completely unfounded.
	I also want to reassure the House about the Post Office—the company that operates the network of post offices. The Post Office is now separate from Royal Mail, and it is not for sale. There will be no repeat by this Government of the closure programme that the Labour party implemented. Far form it; this Government are committed to ensuring a sustainable future for the Post Office. We are providing funding of £1.34 billion over four years to maintain a network of at least 11,500 branches and to ensure that 90% of the population live within 1 mile of a Post Office outlet. That is the largest investment in the Post Office’s history, and it will also enable the modernisation of up to 6,000 branches.
	This is a significant day for Royal Mail, and the sale of shares will complete our reform of the postal sector. We want Royal Mail to have the real commercial freedom that it needs to compete and to ensure the universal service that consumers and businesses rightly value. That is what our reform will deliver, and I commend this statement to the House.

Ian Murray: I thank the Minister for his statement and for coming to the House today, following his intention-to-float announcement to the stock exchange this morning. Let us start by putting on record our thanks to all the staff at Royal Mail for all that they do, and for their dedication to delivering the mail, come rain or shine, to all parts of the country. Royal Mail is a much-cherished national institution.
	The case for the privatisation of Royal Mail has not been made. Its recent annual profits were more than £400 million and we should be allowing it to flourish in the public sector, but the Minister has told the stock exchange today that he will sell a majority stake in the company, on a shortened timetable. He is pushing ahead with this politically motivated fire sale to fill the hole in the Treasury created by George Osborne’s failed economic plan.
	This decision will have significant impacts on consumers, businesses and communities up and down the country. The Government are pressing ahead with the fire sale of Royal Mail despite having failed to answer critical questions on the six-days-a-week, one-price-goes-anywhere universal service obligation. The Minister has failed to ensure the long-term maintenance of the USO. He claims that it is written in legislation, but I am sure that he can envisage a scenario in which a privatised Royal Mail comes to the Government and asks for alterations to that legislation.
	Why is that a realistic scenario? It is because the regulatory environment does not prevent the cherry-picking of the most profitable parts of Royal Mail by rival companies that operate under much lower service standards than Royal Mail. If the USO becomes unsustainable, the Government will have no choice but to alter it. Royal Mail will still have to deliver daily to Shetland while its rivals enjoy providing services in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh and other profitable centres. Pressure will be put on the Government to respond to such requests to alter the USO; otherwise, what is there to prevent the privatised Royal Mail from handing back the USO keys, just as we have witnessed with the east coast main line? The result will be that the taxpayer will, ultimately, pick up the costs.
	Concerns have been expressed about higher prices. Other privatised companies have already set precedents in that area. One of the questions posed in the Government’s documents today is whether the Post Office will be affected. The Minister says no, but the 10-year inter-business agreement can be reviewed in four years, and it can be altered if there are material adverse effects on either of the two companies. How can the Minister say that this privatisation does not affect the post office network? A privatised Royal Mail will want to look closely at costs, and that £380 million annual contract could be a good place to start.
	The National Federation of SubPostmasters tells us that the privatisation of Royal mail threatens the future of the post office network and, as a result, it now opposes the privatisation. It has called it a “reckless gamble”, and we should listen to what it says. It is not only the NFSP that is against the move. Despite the £2,000 shares bribe to the staff of Royal Mail, a massive 96% of them voted against the privatisation, on a turnout of over 75%. Moreover, they already own the company. A poll in The Sunday Times last week showed 70% of the public to be against it, and former
	Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher, the architect of privatisation, said that it was a step too far. The Bow Group, a right-wing Tory think-tank, said that it would be deeply unpopular and should not be considered. A vast coalition of groups and organisations echo the concerns about prices, the maintenance of the USO and the impact on the Post Office. And the Minister himself said in a letter in 2009 that he was against the privatisation of Royal Mail. The problem is that the Government cannot see the wood for the ideological trees.
	Let me ask the Minister four questions. He said in his statement: “Changes to the universal service’s minimum requirements, which include free services for the blind and services to urban and rural areas alike, can be made only by affirmative resolutions in both Houses.” Would that involve primary or secondary legislation, and would such legislation be dealt with on the Floor of the House or in Committee? Secondly, in what circumstances can he envisage the USO being revised? Thirdly, what assurances can he give us that the inter-business agreement with the Post Office will not be removed or revised? Fourthly, when will the prospectus be drawn up and made available? This is the largest privatisation since that of British Gas. The Government are playing politics with the Queen’s head, and they should think again before it is too late.

Michael Fallon: I do not think that we can legitimately be accused of conducting a fire sale, given that the previous Government were proposing to privatise the company four years ago. The process has hardly been rushed. A lot of people were against that sale; it was a half-baked sale and almost every Labour MP was against it, which is why it was abandoned.
	I have already made it clear to the House that the universal service obligation is laid down in statute. It can be changed only by Parliament, and we have no plans to ask Parliament to change it. I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance in that respect. He asked me about the minimum requirements of the service. They can be changed by affirmative resolution, which would involve secondary legislation. We have no plans to alter those requirements. They will be properly policed by the regulator and will apply irrespective of any change in ownership. The price of stamps is also regulated. The price of a second-class stamp is capped by the regulator, and we have no plans to change that position either.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about the relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail. They are natural partners in the delivery business, and it is unthinkable that they would not seek to work closely together. They have done more than that, however. Last April, they signed a 10-year commercial agreement to provide for the two businesses to work more closely together.
	We heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman about what a future Labour Government would do. It seems extraordinary that, four years on, the Opposition still have not worked out a policy. Even now, they cannot say whether Royal Mail should be public or private; they cannot make up their mind whether they would renationalise the company if there were ever to be a Labour Government again.

Katy Clark: Does the Minister not accept that bringing companies such as TNT—which uses zero-hours contracts and sends people
	home every day because there is not enough work for them—into the most profitable areas will put pressure on a privatised Royal Mail to cut the terms and conditions of its work force and to cut the service for customers?

Michael Fallon: There is already competition in the postal market from companies such as TNT, but Royal Mail management have made it clear in their discussions with the union that there will be no change to the work force’s current terms and conditions, and they are prepared to sign an agreement with the union on that basis.

Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the union is opposed because that is Labour policy or that Labour is opposed because that is the union’s policy? Will anything in the announcement stop the Communication Workers Union continuing to support Labour’s constituency party development plans, which strike me as rather political?

Michael Fallon: No, I do not think that anything in the agreement will stop that continuing relationship, but we are still waiting for an answer from the Labour party on whether it will respond to the union’s call to renationalise this company, should we ever be unfortunate enough to have Labour in government again.

Edward Leigh: Given that we started this process in the old Department of Trade and Industry 21 years ago, this must be the longest fire sale in history. It was apparent then, as it is apparent now, that if Royal Mail is to grow it must have commercial freedom. At the same time, it is possible through primary legislation to protect the universal service—the stamp costs the same in rural Lincolnshire as in London. We said that 21 years ago and we have been saying it ever since. When will Labour Members start to listen?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who played a part at an earlier stage of the story. A lot of progress has been made since then in tackling the pension deficit, setting up a proper regulatory framework and separating Royal Mail from the Post Office, but he is right to emphasise the key point: Royal Mail needs commercial freedom to invest in its future. The private post in Germany, Deutsche Post, is spending about £600 million a year in modernising its network and in automating, and Royal Mail needs the freedom to invest similarly.

Peter Hain: What credibility can we attach to the Minister’s promises on the universal service when The Daily Telegraph reported last December that Ministers were pressing for a reduction in the commitment to first-class deliveries being provided universally? Is not that the beginning of a slippery slope that the public fear over privatisation, and why is he not imposing the same obligation on competitors to Royal Mail, such as TNT, to deliver to every house in the land, which Royal Mail has and which is costly to it while competitors cream off the most profitable business?

Michael Fallon: This is not a promise or pledge from me that the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents need to rely on; it is a law—an Act of Parliament—that the universal service has to continue to be provided. That law can be changed only by the House. We have
	absolutely no plans to change it. It is up to the regulator to ensure that competition is proper in that market and that the universal service provision is properly provided by Royal Mail.

Jason McCartney: Yesterday morning, I met some RAF personnel who have just returned from six-month tours in Afghanistan, and I know the importance they put on the mail and parcels that they receive while serving our country overseas. Will my right hon. Friend say what arrangements are in place for armed forces personnel serving overseas?

Michael Fallon: The postal service will continue. It is funded by the Ministry of Defence in agreement with Royal Mail.

Michael Connarty: As organising secretary of the communications group in this place for the 20 years I have been here, I am not surprised that the Minister is the person bringing this forward—domesday for Royal Mail is reality—but when someone gets old they will do anything to get into a ministerial car, I suppose.
	The point is that the Postal Services Act 2011 is deeply flawed, because it will allow a Minister in a future Government—or even this Minister, although he will not do it before 2014—to go to a Statutory Instrument Committee, not the Floor of the House, and destroy all the things that are guaranteed at the moment. Is it not true that, although there might not be enough money to renationalise the industry after it is given to the private sector, only a Labour vote will guarantee that the universal service and the terms and conditions of employment in the Act will be sustained by a future Government?

Michael Fallon: This Government have put the protection in place that the universal service has to continue and be provided irrespective of the ownership of Royal Mail.

Martin Horwood: The employee share percentage is not as high as originally advocated by the Liberal Democrats, but it is nevertheless the most significant in many decades. Has the Minister heard from the Communication Workers Union that it welcomes that significant advance in worker ownership?

Michael Fallon: I have had discussions with the union about the details of the employee share scheme. At the moment, the union is opposing privatisation, but my hon. Friend will recall that the unions have opposed previous privatisations, yet their own members have taken the schemes up. I will be interested to see how many members of the Communication Workers Union opt out of the free shares that are being made available.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister recall—he probably does—that in the late ’80s we had a wholesale privatisation of almost all the public utilities, with the exception of this one? That was under what Mrs Thatcher called the share-owning democracy. It is almost as if I can hear the same words from the Dispatch Box today. What happened to that share-owning democracy? Almost without exception, the public utilities are now owned abroad and are ripping off the British
	consumer. The only difference between now and then is that those lickspittle Lib Dems have joined the Tories to privatise this one. What an utter disgrace.

Michael Fallon: I do recall hearing roughly the same sentiments from the hon. Gentleman back in the 1980s, but I do not want to return to a world where people waited weeks and months for a phone to be installed. Is he really suggesting that we go back to the days when the state owned car companies, electricity, gas, water and all the rest? Let me be clear about his allegation that the consumer could be ripped off: the price of the second-class stamp will continue to be regulated and will be set by the regulator. It will not be possible for Royal Mail to increase prices in the way he suggests.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the transfer of shares from Royal Mail to the Royal Mail workers, but will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents in Harlow that we will not go the way of the water companies, where the directors paid themselves huge wages and increased prices for consumers? Will he set out the consumer protection?

Michael Fallon: Let me reassure my hon. Friend absolutely that there are no deal bonuses for the senior management as part of the share sale. The protection for the consumer has been laid down by the House in the Postal Services Act 2011, which he will recall—I hope—voting for two years ago. The regulation is set out there and the price of the stamp will continue to be capped by the regulator.

Caroline Lucas: Does not the Government’s insistence on flogging off Royal Mail demonstrate their pursuit of ideology rather than evidence, given that Royal Mail is doing pretty well and is in profit? Will the Minister guarantee that profits following the sell-off will be invested in what is good for Britain, rather than what is good for a handful of shareholders?

Michael Fallon: There will be many more than a handful of shareholders; I hope that Royal Mail will have millions of owners in the future. Let me absolutely reassure the hon. Lady on one part of her question: there will be continuing regulation of the price of the stamp by the regulator and the universal service will continue to be protected. Neither will change with the change in ownership.

Richard Graham: It is true that privatisation is not always the right way forward for public services, and as secretary of the all-party parliamentary group for post offices I am clear that it is not the way forward for post offices. Therefore, I welcome the Minister’s complete reassurance today that post offices are separate and will remain in public service.
	However, I believe that the only way for the business of Royal Mail to grow is to have that chance to invest in new technology, so that it can track parcels, compete with its competitors, win business, grow, employ more people in Britain and export its services abroad so that it can become a global brand and a great British success. Does the Minister agree that this is the right way forward for a successful Royal Mail?

Michael Fallon: Yes, this is one of Britain’s biggest businesses and the biggest delivery company in Britain, and it is a profitable company in a fast-growing market, particularly the parcels market. There are huge opportunities as online shopping develops—it is more developed in this country than in some European countries, so there are huge opportunities at home and in Europe for Royal Mail. It needs, however, commercial freedom and access to capital markets to take full advantage of those opportunities.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Members must ask questions and leave short speeches for another day if we are to allow everybody to contribute to the statement. Quick questions and short answers will help us enormously.

Clive Efford: The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot have a regulatory regime that allows services to be cherry-picked where profitable by the jackals that will buy Royal Mail, and then say they will protect the universal service. We all know it will be broken up, but will the Minister say whether his description of the universal service requires people to collect their mail from a central collection point, rather than its being delivered door to door?

Michael Fallon: The universal obligation is set out by the regulator and is not—and cannot be—affected by the change in ownership. Any change to the universal obligation would be made by this House, and as I have said, we have no plans to change that. On cherry-picking and so on, it is for the regulator to police the market and ensure there are no unfair practices.

Julian Smith: May I congratulate the Minister on delivering a deal that many other Governments failed to deliver? Even the prince of darkness failed on this one. Instead, the Minister is giving Royal Mail hope and a vision for the future. Does he agree that for my rural constituents in north Yorkshire, innovation from the private sector, combined with the service obligation guarantee, could mean better services in the future?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Today’s announcement builds on work done by the House in passing postal service legislation, and by my two Liberal Democrat predecessors in getting us to the position we are in today. Yes, there is every opportunity for Royal Mail to face its future with confidence, access to capital markets and new commercial freedoms, and every reason to expect the service to continue to improve.

David Hanson: Given that the minimum purchase of shares is £750, will the Minister explain how my low-paid constituents such as pensioners or the unemployed will retain a stake in what they already own? Is this a transfer from us all to the richest in society?

Michael Fallon: I thought the Labour party opposed this privatisation, but if there are ways we can help the right hon. Gentleman make it more accessible to his
	constituents, we will certainly let him have details of the website and so on. It is fairly standard to set a minimum threshold—for example, it was £1,000 in the recent Direct Line public offering—and the amount simply reflects standard practice. We hope there will be sufficient opportunity for retail participation, as I would not like members of the public who wish to subscribe to miss out.

Nigel Adams: To build on a previous question by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), will the Minister confirm what protections will be in place to protect the excellent discounted delivery service for armed forces personnel serving overseas?

Michael Fallon: Those arrangements will continue. That is an arrangement between the Ministry of Defence and Royal Mail, and both parties have every interest in ensuring it continues. There will be no change for members of the armed forces.

Michael Weir: The Minister makes much of the protection for consumers, but Ofcom has already shown its true colours by abandoning all price caps other than that for second-class mail. Does the Minister realise that experience of previous privatisations means that no one outside his Government believes that the regulator will give consumers protection on either services or prices?

Michael Fallon: The regulator is independent of the Government, Ministers and this House, and it is not possible for it to change legislation that we have passed. The cap remains in place.

Guy Opperman: My constituents in Northumberland want a six-days-a-week universal service, but with incentives and shares for staff, and want Royal Mail to have the commercial freedom to invest, innovate and compete with online and other providers. Will the proposal address the problems that successive Governments have failed to address over successive decades?

Michael Fallon: Yes, I believe it will. It will give Royal Mail the chance to face its future not just with confidence but with access to capital markets and the commercial freedoms it needs to respond to new opportunities, particularly in a rapidly growing parcels market.

Cathy Jamieson: The Minister has repeatedly mentioned the cap on the cost of a stamp. Will he confirm that that relates only to second-class mail? Does he understand the concerns of many small businesses that rely on first-class mail, and what assurances can he give them?

Michael Fallon: There is a cap on the second-class stamp, and a provision that the first-class stamp must be affordable—something the regulator must keep a close eye on. It is not simply the second-class stamp.

Charlie Elphicke: Has the Minister read the statement on saveourroyalmail.org:
	“If the Royal Mail is sold off affordable prices, rural services and free postal services for our service men and women as well as vulnerable groups will disappear”?
	Will he confirm whether that statement is true or whether it is so false and misleading that the Advertising Standards Authority might intervene?

Michael Fallon: A number of unfortunate scare stories have been put about in connection with this sale, but I emphasise that there is no threat to existing arrangements for the blind or the armed forces. Those arrangements are not being changed by this announcement.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that in Coventry, particularly in my constituency, there will be widespread relief that post offices are being left out of this privatisation? Just a few weeks ago I had the honour of opening a newly modernised and already highly successful post office facility, which shows that companies in public ownership can do well and services can be maintained.

Michael Fallon: I am glad the hon. Gentleman was able to take some credit for Government investment in his local post office, and I am sure he drew the attention of his constituents to the fact that it was due to this Government’s money and commitment to modernising the network. I did the same when I had the honour of opening a newly modernised post office in my constituency a few weeks ago. Let me be clear: the Government are not privatising the Post Office. What is being put up for sale is Royal Mail—the delivery part of the business. The Post Office will remain in public ownership.

Alison Seabeck: Post offices in Plymouth and rural Devon are a vital resource. Will the Minister say whether a mechanism exists so that if the private company decides to break the link with the Post Office post 2022, Parliament and the Government will have some say in the matter to protect the public interest?

Michael Fallon: The agreement is, I think, the longest possible under European Union law—as the hon. Lady said, it is a 10-year agreement taking us to 2022. As I said in an earlier answer, it is pretty unthinkable that Royal Mail and the Post Office would not want to continue a close working relationship, but it is, of course, up to the House to scrutinise that agreement any way it wants.

Andrew Percy: The Labour party in my constituency is so committed to Royal Mail that on the rare occasions it delivers literature, it chooses to use Royal Mail’s private sector competitors to do so. Those same people have being saying publicly that the Government are selling off the Post Office. Will the Minister confirm for their benefit that the Post Office will not be sold off, and may I urge him to go further and demand an apology from the Labour party for the vast number of post offices it closed in communities in my constituency?

Michael Fallon: I do not think we are likely to get an apology for the extensive and damaging closure programme for which the previous Government were responsible, but at the very least the work force of the Royal Mail is entitled to some statement from the Labour party as to
	whether it would renationalise the business. I hope that someone from that party will make its position clear before we go much further into this statement.

Chi Onwurah: I declare an interest in that I worked for Ofcom before entering the House. From that experience, I know that the only way that natural monopoly networks of this type work in the private sector is when we have real competition at the infrastructure level on the ground, as in telecoms. Is the Minister truly proposing that we will have multiple posties delivering to doorsteps from North Devon to Newcastle, or will we end up with another bloated private sector monopoly vested interest, as we have seen in water, energy and rail?

Michael Fallon: This is not a monopoly market at the moment. There are companies competing in the marketplace, as they have to do under European law. This House has decided that there should be that competition in that particular way and has established Ofcom, for which the hon. Lady used to work, to supervise that competition.

Philip Hollobone: Residents in the borough of Kettering and across Northamptonshire very much value their local post offices. Can the Minister confirm that those post offices will not form part of the Royal Mail privatisation, and indeed will be subject to record additional new investment? Can he also assure the posties who work in the Kettering delivery office that their terms and conditions will not change, and they will be entitled to free shares in up to 10% of Royal Mail?

Michael Fallon: I confirm that the Government are committing more than £1.3 billion to modernise the post office network and I can also confirm that all those eligible for Royal Mail shares—those employed by Royal Mail at the time of the statement on 10 July—will be eligible for free shares. More details will be published with the final share offer.

Gregg McClymont: Can the Minister help the House with an urgent missing persons case? Where is the Minister with responsibility for postal affairs? Is she in hiding because it is only with the help of Liberal Democrat votes that a privatisation that even Mrs Thatcher thought was beyond the pale can go ahead?

Michael Fallon: This is a statement about Royal Mail, although I have also given assurances about the future of the Post Office. This is a coalition policy that was in the coalition agreement and Ministers across the coalition have worked on it. My two immediate predecessors with responsibility for Royal Mail were Liberal Democrat Ministers, and I have had support throughout this process from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Nia Griffith: In the fattening up for privatisation we have already seen price hikes and the ending of 7 pm collections in many towns. What guarantees can the Minister give that there will be no further erosion of collection, such as the getting rid of post boxes, fewer collections later in the day and some rural
	post offices not even having collections every day? What guarantees can he give about the delivery of parcels six days a week? None of those issues are fully covered by the legislation.

Michael Fallon: I reassure the hon. Lady that all those matters are covered by the licence conditions under which the Royal Mail operates. The licence is given by Ofcom, and it is for that body to ensure that the licence conditions are adhered to.

Jim Shannon: What Royal Mail needs is new investment, upgrading and modernisation within continuity of service. Can the Minister give an indication of the additional investment that will take place as a result of the sale of shares in Royal Mail?

Michael Fallon: I told the House of the scale of investment now being made by the privatised German postal service, Deutsche Post. That £600 million of investment gives us an idea of the scale of investment that may be needed to help modernise. The Royal Mail has to modernise its network, invest in its infrastructure and automate more of its parcels business. It can no longer compete for scarce public resources with schools and hospitals that will always have priority over such investment. It is absurd to have a company of that size as the only really big British business that cannot access the private capital that it needs. That will end.

Derek Twigg: Many of my constituents have contacted me to say that they oppose this privatisation. They recall similar promises of improved services made when the utilities were privatised, and few people could be found today who believe that happened. Why does the Minister think that a majority of the British people are opposed to his policy?

Michael Fallon: There are members of the public who do not yet fully understand how Royal Mail has been separated from the Post Office and who have chosen to believe some of the untrue scare stories that have been put around. The hon. Gentleman will also recall that almost every privatisation that I can remember has initially been opposed—or failed to command universal support—but nobody now suggests that we reverse those privatisations of the 1980s.

Diana Johnson: My constituents are concerned that a national asset—our Royal Mail—will end up in foreign ownership. What guarantee can the Minister give that that will not happen?

Michael Fallon: By the end of the privatisation process, the Royal Mail will have multiple owners, including the work force itself, which will own 10% of the business. We have chosen not to sell Royal Mail to another mail operator or a single private equity owner, but to make this a public offering so that Royal Mail will have millions of new owners. The hon. Lady should also consider the opportunities for Royal Mail in international markets. Royal Mail already has a subsidiary, GLS, and there will be huge opportunities for it to win more business overseas and across Europe.

William Bain: The hard-working staff of Scotland’s largest sorting office, based in my constituency, are very much against these
	plans. Is the Minister aware that they have been joined this morning by TNT, which described his plans in
	The Daily Telegraph
	as
	“preposterous…bad for consumers, bad for business”?
	Is he not increasingly isolated about what is in the best interests of the industry and of the country?

Michael Fallon: It sounds as though TNT is a little nervous about a more competitive and better financed Royal Mail. We will see how many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents working at that sorting office choose to opt out of the share scheme in the next few weeks.

Glenda Jackson: The Minister continues to refute the allegation that this is a fire sale, but as 70% of people in this country are totally opposed to such privatisation, will not the flotation occur in an atmosphere in which the basic share price will automatically be reduced, so the taxpayer will have been cheated?

Michael Fallon: It is one of the primary objectives of the sale to secure maximum value for money for the taxpayer, and of course it will be subject to scrutiny in this House, as previous sales have been, and by the National Audit Office.

Jim Cunningham: The Minister can say what he wants about the work force having a say because it owns 10% of the company, but within a couple of years those shares will be sold. That is what happened at Rolls-Royce. The public will be the loser because they will not get any benefit from the billions of pounds that have been invested in the service. It should remain where it is, and the public should get the benefit of its profitability.

Michael Fallon: One point of agreement between the union and me has been the need to ensure longevity so that the shares are held, not sold off the next day, by the work force. They will have to hold the shares for a minimum of three years before they are able to sell. During that time, they will receive dividends and be able to vote on the future policy of the company, and day by day they will see the actual share price.

Nicholas Dakin: The Minister struggled to answer the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), so I will give him another go. Can he guarantee that the Royal Mail, with the Queen’s head on its stamps, will continue to remain UK-owned and UK-headquartered?

Michael Fallon: It will of course be UK-headquartered. It will have multiple owners after privatisation. Those who are located in the UK are able to apply for shares on the issue. We are not restricting the issue to UK citizens or UK nationals. Anybody located here can invest in the business through the retail offer. Having a multiple ownership is the best possible protection for the company. I repeat that we deliberately decided not to sell the company to a single owner or single private equity company.

Tom Blenkinsop: TNT, one of Royal Mail’s competitors, provides the core service in Holland on a similar basis to the Royal Mail, with VAT exemptions. However, the universal service obligation in Holland and across much of the EU is very different from the UK USO—it is on a
	five-day basis. The Minister knows that his Government’s Postal Services Act 2011 allows him to go upstairs and, through a statutory instrument, change the USO from six days to five days. Will he do that in the future?

Michael Fallon: No, it is not possible to change the six-day service through a statutory instrument. That can only be changed by this House. As I have said, we have absolutely no plans to change that obligation.

Iain McKenzie: In his statement, the Minister gave some commitments on the future of the Royal Mail. Will he go one step further and give some guarantees that there will be no job losses, no move to increase part-time working, no closures of sorting offices, and a continuation of the much-loved Saturday delivery?

Michael Fallon: Let us be clear: there have been 50,000 job losses in the last 10 years of public ownership, so public ownership is no guarantee of job security. The best guarantee of job security is to be able to work for a company that is growing and investing in its future, and able to access the finance it needs. The management of Royal Mail have put on the table a series of assurances about future terms and conditions, which they hope the union will come to agree before we get to the point of privatisation.

Stephen Timms: The Minister has told us that the price of a second-class stamp will be regulated, but that will not reassure people who pay regulated energy bills. What grounds does he have for his assurance that price control will be effective in the case of Royal Mail?

Michael Fallon: The price control arrangements were set by this House, and they are for Ofcom to regulate. Ofcom has capped the price of a second-class stamp, which cannot rise higher than 55p. It is not at that level yet, but that is the cap imposed by Ofcom. Ministers cannot interfere with that.

Backbench Business

Child Protection

Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered child protection in the UK.
	I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving Members the opportunity to debate this important subject. As a precautionary measure, I declare my related interests as in the register.
	As I have said on many occasions, opportunities to debate and air issues of child protection or of children generally are frustratingly rare, as I found in opposition and as Minister with responsibility for these matters, so today’s debate is welcome. It is particularly important because child protection and child abuse, in its different forms, have probably never had a higher profile, and have never triggered such a response and awareness among the public at large, which is probably the one compensation of the whole sordid Jimmy Savile affair. That is why, a year on from Savile, I and other hon. Members requested a debate on child protection.
	The extraordinary turn of events started to unravel almost a year ago when the media heralded a modest but game-changing ITV documentary—produced by Mark Williams-Thomas, to whom I pay tribute for what he has set in motion as a result—which first tentatively suggested that Jimmy Savile had abused teenage girls as young as 13. It seemed incredible that the semi-beatified, spangly shell-suited former Bevin boy, “Top of the Pops” doyen, children’s TV icon and multi-charity philanthropist had so successfully hidden his alter ego as a serious sexual predator, and a pretty prolific and grubby one at that. The rest, of course, is history. The initial Guardian headline about some 10 female victims having come forward was one of its more glaring underestimates. The number of victims was then upgraded to some 300, some of them possibly as young as nine years old, and the figure is now in excess of 600. The ramifications for the BBC, for the rest of the establishment and for the public profile of child abuse, however, have been huge. It is worth briefly reviewing what has come to light over the past year.
	There has been Operation Yewtree, which concentrated on the Savile case—600 people have come forward as having been abused by Jimmy Savile over a 60-year period. There are records of people who said that they were turned away when they reported abuse suffered at his hands. Six former police officers admitted that they were aware of Savile’s behaviour, with extensive evidence of cover-ups and withholding of information leading to abuse continuing over such a long period, including against children, teenage fans and kids in hospitals and care homes. We have seen the recent conviction of Stuart Hall for assaults spanning some 18 years on at least 13 girls, and a panoply of assorted comedians, publicists, entertainers, soap stars and childhood icons at various stages of arrest, investigation or facing court. Senior heads have rolled at the BBC, and its inquiry is said to have cost the licence fee payer in excess of £10 million already.
	Operation Pallial has investigated the original claims of historical abuse at children’s homes in north Wales going back to the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s and ’90s. There has been a review by Mrs Justice Macur of the terms of the Waterhouse inquiry into the abuse of children in care in Gwynedd and Clwyd council areas. Operation Fernbank was established to focus on claims of sexual abuse and the grooming of children involving parties for men at the former Elm guest house in south-west London in the ’70s and ’80s. Operation Fernbridge has been launched as a result of allegations arising from Operation Fernbank. The Independent revealed on 9 June that seven officers are pursuing more than 300 lines of inquiry.
	There are a number of inquiries involving children being abused in schools. Operation Flamborough is investigating alleged assaults on girls with learning difficulties at a Hampshire boarding school. At Carlekemp in North Berwick, a feeder primary school to Fort Augustus Abbey Catholic school has been linked to abuse allegations, as has Fort Augustus Abbey itself. There have been abuse allegations in relation to Kesgrave Hall school, near Ipswich. At Chetham’s music school in Manchester, a former director of music and his wife were found guilty of indecently assaulting Frances Andrade, who, tragically, was driven to take her own life after being subjected to harsh cross-examination during the trial, having been labelled a fantasist and attention seeker and advised not to seek counselling during the trial. There have been allegations of sexual abuse in many other music schools, including the Yehudi Menuhin school in Surrey, and schools in Edinburgh and Somerset. But it does not stop there.
	In the diocese of Chichester, in my part of the country, retired priests have been charged with sexual offences. The diocese has had four inquiries into child abuse in the past four years, including a formal visitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury and a report written by the noble Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. The General Synod voted on 7 July this year to issue an unreserved historic apology from the Church of England to victims of clerical sex abuse. We have seen countless examples of child sexual exploitation cases: Operation Retriever; the extraordinary case in Rochdale where 47 girls were identified as victims of child sexual exploitation; the case in Rotherham; Operation Bullfinch in Oxford—there is still more to run on that one; and Operation Chalice in which seven men were jailed following a police investigation into child sexual exploitation involving young white girls in Telford.
	Of course, there were the recent tragic killings of April Jones at the hands of 46-year-old Mark Bridger, and of Tia Sharp at the hands of her grandmother’s boyfriend, Stuart Hazell, which were linked to downloading abuse images of children. The case of Daniel Pelka, who was killed and tortured in an incredibly cruel way, came to court in the last few months: a defenceless four-year-old child was systematically tortured, yet this was on the radar of local authority services. Next week, the Coventry safeguarding children board will undertake a serious case review, during which I think we will hear some familiar stories—a case of déjà vu for those of us who have been around the block so many times with this sort of cruelty. Of course, there was also the serious case review of the Birmingham nursery case.
	I make no apology for what is a grim reading list, involving cases that have been instigated, reopened, proceeded with through the courts or investigated in just the last year, since the Jimmy Savile case hit and maintained the headlines for so many months.

Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman also include for the record a dreadful case that touches all of us in the House: that of baby Peter, which drew our attention to the need for a systematic, cross-services approach to child protection?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we could have taken up this entire debate with the history of some of these cases. And these are only the high-profile cases that we know about and read about. They are only a small sample of what has actually been going on; many more have not reached the headlines or even the courts.
	Away from the high-profile stories that make the media headlines, the wider figures show that our various child protection agencies have never been busier. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that referrals to ChildLine about sexual abuse were nearly twice as high in June and July of this year as in the same period last year, pre-Savile. There have been 2.4 million visits to the ChildLine website in the last year—an increase of some 28% on the previous year. The NSPCC estimates that more than 50,000 children in the UK are known to be at risk of abuse. It calculates that last year, a total of 2,900 rapes or attempted rapes of children under the age of 13 were recorded; that is eight per day. Indeed, 32%—almost a third—of all sexual crimes in this country are against children under the age of 16.

Meg Munn: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels very deeply about this issue. Do these figures not show that we have to be more aware of the fact that paedophiles will target professions in which they can get access to children, and that the Government therefore need to do more? Instead of relaxing regulations relating to children and Ofsted child protection inspections, the Government need to be much more cognisant of the issue, target areas where such things are likely to happen, and make people aware that paedophiles will be in these professions. Action must be taken to stop them.

Tim Loughton: I agree with the hon. Lady, who knows a great deal about this issue, having been a practitioner in the field; indeed, she and I have worked together through the all-party group on child protection. We need to be wiser to the professions in which paedophiles and potential paedophiles will inveigle themselves. At the same time, however, training and awareness in some of these professions—an issue I shall return to—have improved enormously, although not enough, yet, and the inspection regime has improved. In too many cases, we were inspecting the wrong thing. I hope that joint agency inspections, which we were promised but which have been put on hold, will still happen, so that we have that cross-disciplinary eye: police looking at children’s services, children’s services looking at education, education looking at health services.
	Too often, there was a silo approach to inspection, which took up a great deal of the time of professionals who would rather spend it looking after the families, and not enough dissemination of information. The best way to bring that about is better multi-agency training, which we have not been good at. That is beginning to happen, however. For example, we have multi-agency safeguarding hubs, through which different agencies are co-located—sitting next to each other in the same room, looking at the same intelligence, discussing cases and coming up with a much better informed and sharper action plan. All those things are improvements, but the point the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) makes is a valid one.
	I know that many Members want to contribute to the debate, but there is a bit more I want to say. With the list I have given goes a looming public apprehension about whether we really have cracked child protection, buffeted by almost weekly revelations of the latest scandal involving abuse at the hands of a bishop, a music teacher, a taxi driver or a soap star. To some extent, it matters not whether the perpetrator is dead or alive, or how long ago his alleged misdemeanours took place. The higher profile given by the media to cases linked to celebrities has, however, been deeply unhelpful, as it detracts from the reality that the main perpetrators are common criminals in ordinary jobs.
	Of course, the fact that so many cases are now coming to court, however belatedly, is a sign of some success, in that offenders are now being pursued better by police. Victims are being heeded more loudly and sympathetically, prosecutions are sticking and the perpetrators are being made to pay.
	However, are our children safer now than they were 50 years ago, when Savile and others started to ply their trade? Have we just replaced celebrity abuse of star-struck teenagers while the establishment turned a blind eye with systematic abuse to order by organised gangs, be they Pakistani-British—high-profile cases of which we have seen—or of whatever culture? Are internet groomers and the recent Oxford and Rochdale abusers just a modern-day version of Savile, armed with mobile phone technology but without shell suits and the lure of the “green room”? In that sense, given the reach of technology as a key tool of the abusers, do they not pose a much more widespread threat now than ever before?
	I think that those of us in the know here today can say that children are safer now than back in the 1960s, but that is a tough sell to the public at large. But if that is the case, when did things actually get better? When did child protection come of age and society at large recognise its significance? When did we equip our agencies sufficiently to question the “It’s just Jimmy” mentality and start turning over some rather grubby stones? Was the landmark Children Act 1989 the turning point? Was it the shocking revelations concerning the north Wales care homes, which have of course come full circle, as we now know that the whole story was not properly revealed? It is to answer these questions that I and others have been calling for some time for an overarching inquiry into the whole sordid history of child abuse in this country, going back to the 1960s and traversing the Children Act, into what I call the legitimate legislation tsunami post-Victoria Climbié. Such an inquiry must
	involve a commission, led by respected figures from the law, lawmakers, social services and children’s charities. It must set out to provide the holistic assurance that has been so sapped by the plethora of at one time weekly inquiries and reviews set up by the Home Office, the BBC, the Department of Health and numerous others, and it must go everywhere.
	Such an inquiry must address four main issues. What exactly happened, and why, over all those years? When did things start getting better, and how? Have all practical steps been taken to give victims the confidence to come forward, and for the police to pursue vigorously any remaining offenders? Perhaps most important of all, have all our major institutions that have significant dealings with children and young people instituted child protection policies and practices that are fit for purpose in 2013 to deal with modern-day technology and savvy perpetrators?

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. May I just put in a caveat? There was a time when a kind of press feeding frenzy went on. Something went very wrong with some of the investigations, a lot of innocent people who had worked with children were falsely accused—for whatever reason—and many good professionals’ lives were destroyed. Please can we make sure that, whatever we do now, we do not start that sort of thing again?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is right, which is why I referred to what happened with celebrities, which was a sort of feeding frenzy and succeeded in masking the multitude of real crimes—not that the former were not real crimes—that were going on amongst ordinary people. That is why we need an overarching inquiry to look holistically at what went wrong, what appeared to go wrong, what was a symptom of media frenzy, and who the victims were and are. Most important, we need to give some satisfaction and confidence to the public at large that somebody is looking at this issue properly, and that there is evidence that their children are safer now—despite everything that has come out—than 10, 20 or 30 years ago. I do not think that an unreasonable ask. The former Prime Minister of Australia established a similar royal commission into historic child abuse in November 2012, to look into institutional responses to allegations of sexual abuse in Australia, particularly linked with the Catholic Church. IT has been done it there, and there is a good case for doing it here.

Lisa Nandy: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for a public inquiry, which I support. He is right to say that we need to restore confidence not just among the public at large but among victims. It seems that there is confusion in government about which Department is providing the drive and lead to ensure that these issues are tackled. When he was the Minister responsible for child protection, it was inconceivable that he would not lead on these issues in the House. This is the second time is less than a year that we have had a debate on child protection, and the other Department with responsibility has not been represented. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about that?

Tim Loughton: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies to the intervention, may I gently remind him that the recommendation is that the mover of the motion speaks for 10 to 15 minutes? He has been on his feet for 18 minutes or more. He has been generous in taking interventions, but that time is supposed to include interventions. It means that there will be a time limit on the rest of the speeches. Therefore, I hope that he will be less generous and draw his remarks to a conclusion. This is not coming out of your time, Mr Loughton.

Tim Loughton: I am gently reminded, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy to give up some time—I think I have a right to reply at the end of the debate—so that as many Members as possible can get in. Perhaps if I do not take any more interventions and speak very quickly, it will help. In response to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), I will gently come on to that point in the few minutes remaining to me, but I think that the answer is that I could not possibly comment.
	I fear that in the UK the public have become increasingly confused and sceptical about what progress has been made over recent years to ensure that our children are safe. That is not surprising given the tsunami of media reports that I have already listed and the tangled tidal wave of reviews announced by Ministers, the BBC, the NHS, the Church and everyone else. Therefore, the public are confused and parents are understandably worried. They need high-profile, high-octane, high-impact leadership from central Government, working with all the relevant agencies, to convince a sceptical public that we are on top of the situation.
	I know that much is going on. Indeed, I instigated quite a lot of what is going on. I know what a champion the Minister from the Home Office is on the issue and welcome his leadership of the National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People instituted in April. However, to take on the point made by the hon. Member for Wigan, I am concerned about the move to the Home Office, because child abuse is not just about detection and prosecution. It is first and foremost about education, awareness, early intervention and prevention, and I think that that is best co-ordinated in the Department for Education, which retains the lead for children’s social care and for Ofsted inspection, I think. It is particularly concerning, therefore, that, at a time when child abuse has never been more in our consciousness, the assurances and leadership from the DFE have been rather muted over the past year.
	I do not understand why, because we have much to be proud of. The Munro reforms provided a fundamental overhaul of child protection and the way in which that is done in this country. They are widely respected and starting to be instituted. Hopefully, the appointment of the chief social worker is raising the profession’s morale and the launch of the Frontline scheme is raising its confidence. The full publication of serious case reviews has cast light on the problems that are going on. There has been a proliferation of multi-agency safeguarding hubs, progress on child sexual exploitation and the action plan. The Children’s Society toolkit was launched just this week and it has also launched its “Say something if you see something” campaign. The Lord Chancellor’s Department has made important announcements about the way in which we treat the 23,000 child witnesses in
	deeply traumatic cases in our courts. There are sermons in mosques about the exploitation of children. In July 2012, children started to be placed far away in residential homes. There will be a report on that later this year. There is also the national action plan to tackle child abuse linked to faith or belief.
	A lot has happened in the past few years to make our children safer. I think the Government need to shout out much more loudly about it. I hope that the Prime Minister, who has rejected calls for an overarching inquiry, will think again in the light of the tsunami of cases in the past year.
	Therefore, in conclusion, child abuse takes many different forms: the harm, neglect and ultimately killing of a vulnerable child by family members; child sexual exploitation and systematic abuse by gangs; internet abuse; opportunistic grooming over the web; cyber-bullying and trolling, on which a campaign was launched in Parliament just this morning. All these things are part of the same problem and we need to show the public how we are protecting our children better. As such, it is a child protection and education and prevention issue, which should be, as it always was, led by the DFE, notwithstanding the talents and dedication of the Minister in his role in the Home Office. Without doing that, we risk giving rise to a new generation of Jimmy Saviles, perhaps without the shell suits and bling but armed with much more powerful—

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Loughton, you said “In conclusion”. I would like you to conclude your remarks. Even allowing for my 30-second intervention, you are way over the 15 minutes. Please conclude your remarks.

Tim Loughton: My final sentence is that this is the challenge that faces us all in the post-Savile world: child protection has potentially never been so important to so many, and all of us have a duty to be vigilant.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. A large number of Members wish to speak in the debate. I ask Members to take no more than 10 minutes, including interventions. The clock will not be on, but it will be a sharp time limit if that is not complied with.

Ann Coffey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who as children’s Minister responded positively to the parliamentary inquiry into children who go missing from care, which was conducted by the all-party group for runaway and missing children and adults and supported by the Children’s Society. I am pleased to support his call for an overarching inquiry.
	Over the past 20 years, we have had numerous high-profile inquiries and serious case reviews after children have been harmed, abused and killed. Almost without exception, those inquiries and reviews have come to the same conclusions—poor inter-agency working, sharing of information and communication were significant factors in failures to prevent the child’s injury or death. There is a public frustration that time and again recommendations point to the same failings in the system.
	It seems that a lot of reviews and inquiries look at the failures of the organisations around the child rather than putting the child’s voice and experience at the centre of the review. I recently looked at a systems review of CSE practice by Stockport’s children’s safeguarding board through the eyes of a victim. I was struck that on a number of occasions her case was closed because she withdrew her co-operation. She would not communicate. Surely a better way would have been to find someone capable of talking to her and winning her trust, which could then have prevented the harm that subsequently happened to her.
	Listening to the children who gave evidence to our inquiry, it was clear that children felt that they had not been, and were not being, listened to. One of the key challenges facing agencies charged with safeguarding children is being able to communicate properly with children, so that they feel able to talk about what is happening to them. I agree with the Children’s Commissioner, Maggie Atkinson, that staff who work with children and young people, from whichever discipline or profession, should experience a common set of training that crosses all boundaries. Unless we can communicate with children, we will not know what is going on in their lives and therefore we will not be able to prevent them from coming to harm.
	Sadly, all too often, that essential communication with children does not happen and we find out all too late about the horrors of the experience that those children have been subjected to, which they then have to relive as witnesses in our courts. There is widespread concern about the treatment of child witnesses in the court system. The failures to provide sufficient support to child witnesses are based on an inadequate understanding of how to communicate with children.
	No one should be in any doubt about how much children worry about going to court. Many children express those fears to the NSPCC’s ChildLine. I will read out just one example. One girl said:
	“I have to go to court this week to give evidence and I really don’t want to. I didn’t want to report the abuse but I was told I had to. It just feels like everything’s my fault and I wish I had never told anyone.”
	I welcome the new guidelines issued by Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, on cases involving child sexual abuse, which he said would ensure that the focus was on allegations made by victims, rather than their weaknesses and vulnerabilities. However, I fear that we are a long way from that in the way witnesses are cross-examined in our courts now.
	The Government are making progress in piloting section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which will allow pre-recorded cross-examination of young and vulnerable witnesses. That is very welcome.
	I recently tabled a series of parliamentary questions which revealed that in the first three months of 2013 registered intermediaries were requested for children in only 16% of cases. This indicates to me that the police, the prosecution, the defence and the courts do not really understand how difficult it is for children to communicate in the current adversarial system and do not understand the need for registered intermediaries to facilitate communication between them and the court.
	Interestingly enough, in spite of all the publicity surrounding witnesses who have been called liars and fantasists and subjected to aggressive cross-questioning by multiple lawyers, I understand that there have been barely any complaints to the Bar Council, which indicates the acceptance and normalisation of aggressive, adversarial cross-examinations.
	I have been reading with interest the work done by academic experts such as Professor John Spencer of Cambridge university and Joyce Plotnikoff about the need to reform the rules and conventional practice in the cross-examination of children. I would like the Minister to consider establishing a commission of inquiry made up of expert judges and leading academics into reforming the rules on cross-examination of children after the spate of recent high-profile sex trials in which lawyers branded vulnerable victims liars again and again.
	Of course the right of the defendant to a fair trail and to examine fairly the witnesses against him or her must be sacrosanct, but the process has to be about obtaining the best quality of evidence in a way that is robust, reliable and safe for the witness. As Lord Justice Auld said in his review of the criminal courts:
	“A criminal trial is not a game under which a guilty defendant should be provided with a sporting chance.”
	Currently, the court appears to be set up as a theatre, in which lawyers perform for the benefit of the jury. Sometimes it does not seem like a real cross-examination of evidence, but to be about smearing and breaking down the witness to get defendants off the hook. One senior English barrister told Dr Emily Henderson, a visiting fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge and a criminal barrister herself who is doing a six-month study of the impact of changes to cross-examination, that:
	“You are always really playing to the audience. Of course, it is one-on-one in that there is only one person answering questions, but you are constantly aiming everything at the people who are ultimately going to be making the decision. So you are playing to the gallery.”
	Another barrister told Dr Henderson:
	“I have three speeches: my opening, my closing and my cross-examination.”
	Barristers in sex abuse cases must be stopped from manipulating child witnesses like puppets.
	As many leading academics, including Spencer and Plotnikoff, have said, 30-plus years of empirical research in this and similar adversarial jurisdictions has shown again and again that conventional cross-examination is more likely to confuse and mislead children than to draw out accurate and reliable evidence. Indeed, research by the NSPCC showed that more than 90% of children under 10 do not understand the questions they are asked in court. The commission that I am proposing could also consider what further measures might be undertaken to improve the safety and reliability of processes for the taking and investigation of children’s evidence by the criminal courts. In addition, it could examine extending the role of registered intermediaries to allow them to cross-examine vulnerable witnesses under the direction of counsel. This idea was first raised more than 20 years ago in the 1989 Pigot committee report, which recommended that advocates’ questions should be relayed through a specialist child examiner, such as a paediatrician, child psychiatrist, social worker or other person who enjoys the child’s confidence.
	In most other continental jurisdictions, including France, Germany, Austria, Norway and Italy, young child witnesses are questioned by a neutral specialist. The interviewer investigates issues that the defence wants raised and consults the defence in the process.
	I was heartened that in 2010 and 2011 the Court of Appeal released several judgments designed to clean up poor cross-examination techniques. The court was very clear that cross-examiners must use language appropriate to the developmental stage of the witness. However, despite these encouraging comments from the Court of Appeal, how we treat children in court is still a massive problem. In the last couple of weeks, we had the judge who described a 13-year-old victim of abuse as predatory. This was in addition to one of the barristers in the Oxford case accusing one of the girls of being a serial liar and fantasist who had fabricated the allegations, and a witness in the Stafford trial had to endure being called a liar day after day.

Meg Munn: There was a lot of condemnation of that at the time, with the Prime Minister and others saying that those remarks should not have been made, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should be worried not that such remarks are being made but that people in these positions believe these things in the first place about children?

Ann Coffey: I agree. Attitudes to children in our society are quite awful sometimes. That manifests itself in various ways.
	Children’s charities and victim support groups said that the Staffordshire trial shamed British justice. These cases demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that a commission to look into further reforms of the practice of cross-examination is the only way to ensure that in the future we get the best possible evidence, without which the courts cannot do justice to the victim or the defendant.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on assigning time to it, and I am pleased to follow two such powerful speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing the debate.
	Over the summer we saw more tragic evidence, if it were needed, of how important it is that the child protection system works swiftly and effectively. Last November the Education Committee published a report “Children first: the child protection system in England.” We agreed that we should focus our attention on three separate but linked themes that were emerging strongly from all that we had heard and read—neglect, older children, and the thresholds for interventions. What drew them together was the recognition that in each case the child should be the priority.
	I will start with neglect. No one should underestimate the scale of this problem. A major study by the NSPCC last year found that severe neglect was experienced by 3.7% of children under 11 and 9.8% of 11 to 17-year-olds
	at some time in their childhood; and 43% of child protection plans are in place as a result of neglect. During our inquiry we learnt that it can be difficult to pin down what is meant by the term “neglect”. It can mean different things for different age groups and in different situations, which can make it difficult for professionals and the public to recognise.
	We were particularly concerned by the variation in rates of neglect between local authorities. We recommended that the Government commission research to see whether similar situations and behaviours were classified as neglect in different local authorities in different ways. We concluded from the evidence that the needs of children and the importance of acting quickly to secure early intervention for children experiencing neglect are all too often not given sufficient priority. I hope that the Government will be prepared to intervene if the responsiveness of local authorities to neglect does not improve.
	We also learned from witnesses that older children are often reluctant to disclose information about abuse or neglect. Potential causes of this include mistrust of the authorities, embarrassment and fear of what is going to happen, including the fear of not being believed. That leads on to another of the three main areas that the Education Committee examined—namely, the support given to older children. Ofsted figures reveal that 24% of the serious case reviews conducted between April 2007 and March 2011 involved children aged 14 or older. That means that children in that group are second only to babies under one in terms of risk of serious harm.

Andrew Griffiths: On the point about older children, does my hon. Friend share my concern that we do not yet seem to be responding adequately and quickly enough to the growing issue of grooming by gangs? We see it in many of our towns and cities across the country, yet we do not seem to have an adequate response.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right. However, it is being taken seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about the use of modern technology and how those who are predatory towards children can use it to co-ordinate and be more effective. As in every area of crime, it is essential that those on the side of law and order, particularly those involved in the protection of children, should keep up and be ahead of the curve in relation to the abusers.
	Childline told us that provision for 16 to 18-year-olds, in particular, represents a massive gap in the system. We concluded that the position was so serious that the Government should undertake a complete review of the support offered to older children by the child protection system, with proposals to reshape services to meet their needs. In their response to our report, Ministers said:
	“We expect local leaders to consider whether their child and family social work services are appropriately configured to meet the needs of all vulnerable children and families.”
	I appreciate the key role played by local authorities in delivering children’s services and the need to respect a certain amount of local discretion as to how they discharge this responsibility, but I hope the Government will act if evidence continues to show that older children are still being overlooked by our child protection system.
	One element of the support on offer to older children has shown a marked improvement in recent months. I was delighted by the package of support for young people leaving care that was unveiled by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), earlier this year. I am pleased to see him in his seat. This includes new rules to ensure that more 16 and 17-year-olds remain in care unless signed off by a director of children’s services. For too long, young care leavers for whom the state is, in effect, the parent have been cast off at 16 or 17 with no support network in place. The new arrangements mark a real step forward, but there is still much more to be done.
	The third aspect of my Committee’s work involved the thresholds for intervention and whether they are set at the right level and applied consistently. We found variation between local authorities in how these thresholds are applied. We recommended that the Government commission research to understand the impact of varying thresholds in different areas, and whether they are too high or rising in some places. Undoubtedly part of the solution is having a common understanding of thresholds as between different agencies and ensuring that information is shared. We found particular concerns about the health sector, as one always does in relation to information sharing.
	We commended, as did my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, the example set by authorities that have brought different agencies together into multi-agency hubs to ensure better co-ordination and information sharing between all the professionals involved in child protection. During the inquiry we went to York, where there was the principle that there should be a response to every need. Rather than having a threshold, the aim was to co-ordinate and to ensure that where a need was expressed people could, at the very least, signpost someone to where they could get help and support.
	The American social reformer Frederick Douglass said:
	“It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”
	He was exactly right. As a political class, we must take the hard lessons of recent years to heart as Britain is confronted by a very 21st-century picture of abuse. As well as the themes that I have mentioned, my Committee heard about threats to the welfare of children from new forms of abuse resulting from technology, as well as older forms of abuse newly present in this country such as the evils of human trafficking and female genital mutilation. The challenge of protecting children is constantly changing, and our response needs to be sure-footed and robust.
	There are clear signs that Ministers have turned their attention to where the child protection system is failing children, but in our inquiry we were concerned about where the responsibility lies. I hope to hear from Ministers whether there has been a change in responsibility as between the Department for Education and the Home Office. Who exactly is in charge? If there has been a change, how could it have occurred without the Education
	Committee being informed about it? Do we have clarity as to who is responsible, and without that clarity can our children really be safe?
	Speaking for myself, not for the Committee, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a strong case for a public inquiry. Such is the level of public disquiet, such are the complexities and challenges of these issues, and such is the need not only to reassure the public but to allow for a public examination of the issues, that nothing short of a public inquiry is required, and it would carry cross-party support. My Committee will undertake follow-up work in connection with our inquiry to assess where we are and what else needs to be done.

Andrew Smith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). I agree with the points that he and, indeed, previous speakers made—this is a vital debate.
	I want to focus on the lessons and the aftermath of the awful crimes uncovered in Oxford in the Bullfinch investigation. We were all shocked and horrified by those crimes, and it is right that those who are guilty are punished and feel the full force of the law. It has to be said, though, that the convictions were the just the beginning of the action that needs to be taken.
	I welcome the steps that are being taken by the National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People. No one should underestimate the challenge of pulling together all the Government Departments, agencies, local authorities and outside organisations, including in the private sector, whose commitment, resources and action are needed to provide real focus and drive to this vital work. I hope that this debate can support the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice in having the clout and reach that he will need to force the pace of progress and deliver real change on the ground. I also support the further steps called for in the “Childhood Lost” petition to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), which calls for more sensitive court procedures, the publication of serious case reviews, and consistent support across the country for victims of child sexual exploitation.
	The Oxford victims, who, as children, should have been protected and cared for, suffered so much and were very brave in giving their evidence. We owe it to them and to all who are at risk to make a mighty effort to prevent such abuse in future.
	I have three key points to make. First, the victims and their families are owed a clear explanation of what went wrong; why they were failed; and, where there was fault, who was responsible and what action will be taken about that. It is terrible to think that this went on so long, for years and years, before the hideous reality was uncovered, thanks eventually to police and social services action. It is right that the Thames Valley chief constable and the county council chief executive have apologised for the time it took and are committed to uncover any shortcomings within their organisations.
	We have to look to the serious case review as the first step, but, as the independent chair of the Oxfordshire safeguarding board has made clear to me, the prime
	purpose of serious case reviews is to learn lessons to improve work to safeguard and promote children’s welfare. She wrote to me:
	“SCRs are not inquiries into how a child died or was seriously harmed, or into who is culpable…Nor are SCRs part of any disciplinary inquiry or process relating to individual practitioners”.
	Such action is the responsibility of the relevant organisation, be it the county council, the police, the health service, or whoever. The abuse in these cases went on for a very long time, and some of the staff involved, and those responsible for them, will have retired or otherwise moved on. In its briefing for this debate, Oxfordshire county council says:
	“Staff previously employed by the County Council will be interviewed by the Serious Case Review author and will be a matter for the Serious Case Review.”
	It seems to me that there may well be a gap in accountability between the ambit of the serious case review and the internal enquiries undertaken by the county council and the police.
	I will of course look very carefully at the serious case review and the outcome of the internal reviews. It is crucial that this is all fully transparent and covers every angle. I am sure that the public will want to know what independent involvement and oversight there is of these reviews. We might well, though, need a public inquiry to get to the bottom of how children in care were left so vulnerable and what can be done to take good care of those at risk in future. The police and crime commissioner for Thames valley has already called for a more general public inquiry into how we safeguard children nationally, reflecting remarks, which I support, that have already been made in this debate. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that.
	My second key point is that it is vital that we put in place effective measures to protect children. Children and parents must be educated in the risks and tell-tale signs and have someone to go to for support and advice. We all have a responsibility to report suspicious activity to the police. I welcome the “Say Something If You See Something” toolkit produced by the NWG Network and the Children’s Society to help businesses, as well as the wider community, to play their part.
	One good thing to come out of Operation Bullfinch in Oxfordshire is the joint team, the Kingfisher unit, bringing together police, social services, drug and alcohol specialists and the health service in combating child sexual abuse. Another is the work being undertaken with schools to alert children to the dangers of grooming. Steps are also being taken to develop a multi-agency safeguarding hub. I urge colleagues from other areas to find out what is being done in their constituencies. Such initiatives are urgently needed everywhere because, sadly, as is becoming more evident as more cases come to light, grooming and abuse are a significant risk everywhere. Do not let the councils, police, schools and other agencies wait until they have a horror on the scale of Operation Bullfinch to deal with.
	My third key point is the question of whether, in social care practice and law, the balance is right between the rights of the child and the duties of parents or those with responsibility for care to safeguard that child. I asked the Library for a briefing on this, because one of the issues of public concern material to the Operation Bullfinch cases is how on earth children can go missing time after time from what supposedly is a place of care,
	even when staff suspect those children are victims of grooming. The Library dug out for me the statutory guidance under Children Act 1989. Volume 5, which is on care homes, states:
	“Staff in children’s homes that are not approved as secure children’s homes should not try to restrain the child or young person simply to stop them from leaving the home.”
	Similarly, “It is legal? A parents’ guide to the law” by the Family and Parenting Institute states:
	“A parent cannot stop a child leaving home by locking them in or physically restraining them.”
	I told one of our colleagues this and he was shocked that he could not legally ground his teenage daughter.
	We have to be careful because, sadly, as other awful cases have shown, abuse sometimes takes place in the family home itself, and no one wants to be in the position of locking the fire escape. Equally, however, it is no good our criticising care workers for their inability to prevent the victims of grooming from going out if we do not give them the power to do so. This needs to be looked at very carefully, to see whether the balance can be shifted more strongly towards allowing those charged with safeguarding to fulfil their responsibilities.

Meg Munn: I am listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend is saying, because this situation is familiar to me from my time working in social services. At that time, secure places were available, which meant that once a child was identified as being at risk, they could be put in secure premises where they were offered support. I am concerned that that provision is not as widely available any more and that that is one of the reasons we find ourselves with the dilemma being described by my right hon. Friend.

Andrew Smith: That is precisely the sort of thing I had in mind when I said that we need to look carefully at whether the balance can be shifted towards enabling those with caring responsibilities to fulfil them.
	We also need urgently to spread the best practice of those care homes—there are some—that have achieved a lower rate of absconding. The sad reality in many of these grooming cases is that the victims initially want to go out because of the treats and affection, and then later, when they are drugged, abused and threatened, they are too scared not to go out and need protection.
	The sad lesson of Operation Bullfinch and similar cases is that while most children can enjoy a childhood free from such horrors, there is a bigger risk of grooming and abuse out there than was previously realised. We know about it now, though, and there is a massive responsibility on us all, both to uncover what has gone wrong and to do our utmost to make sure that every child is safe.

John Hemming: I refer the House to my chairmanship of the Justice for Families campaign and of Care Leavers Voice, which is a group of care leavers who are concerned that the voice of care leavers is excluded from the system.
	On 14 August Jana Tokolyova, who is the press officer of the Slovak Republic’s equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service, the General Prokuratura, reported that their equivalent of the Director of Public Prosecutions
	had agreed with the deputy director of their national police to appoint a special agent to investigate a criminal complaint by Silivie Maher that relates to care proceedings in the UK.
	This is an interesting process, because it is an extra-jurisdictional process. I believe it relates to the Rome statute and, as such, could lead to the end result of members of the Government facing questions about why they have tolerated the amount of malpractice that goes on in care proceedings in England and Wales.
	On 5 December 2012 Leicester city council fired a very experienced social worker because she wanted to send a baby home to their mum and dad. Her assessment was that the parents were competent, but Sir Martin Narey and Education Ministers want a rapid movement to adoption—hence, the baby remained in care. This pressure by local authority managers on a social worker to lie to the court is, of course, a criminal offence. However, I think the Slovak Republic is more willing than the police in England to investigate criminality in our courts. Happily, however, on 5 September 2013 the case was set down for a full hearing by an employment tribunal next year.
	I have for some time been worried about what I was told by a social worker some years ago, which is that at times the legal aid-funded solicitors for parents conspire with local authority staff in order to ensure that the parents lose. One example where that appears to have happened is that of Jaqcue and John Courtnage, whose two sons were taken into care because one had a lump on his head. The doctors were not sure whether it was because of a fracture or a fissure. The child was neurologically sound, which implies a fissure, but the parents did not see the evidence that it could have been a fissure until after the court had decided in 2010 that it was a fracture, and the question was never considered in any court judgment.
	A court order on 30 October 2008 had said that all evidence should be provided to the parents. That did not happen. The hospital provided Derbyshire county council with the information in December 2008, but this did not get to the parents until after the finding of fact hearing of 2010, when they made a subject access request.
	The question is whether the council colluded with the parents’ solicitors. Chris Sedgewick of Miles and Cash has been asked about the issue by his client and me. Although he denies the allegation, he has refused to give a detailed response, which confirms to me that Miles and Cash colluded with Derbyshire county council to keep this evidence from the parents.
	Additionally, there was a single metaphyseal fracture, but Thomas, Rosenfield, Leventhal and Markowitz found as long ago as 1990 that
	“femur fractures often are accidental and that the femur can be fractured when the running child trips and falls.”
	Their article can be found on pages 471 to 476 of volume 88, No. 3 of the journal Paediatrics, published on 1 September 1991. Again, here we have an essentially criminal allegation that escapes investigation and prosecution in England, but which could be prosecuted by the Slovak Republic.
	Article 3 of the European convention on human rights was almost certainly engaged with regard to the removal by the police of the newborn baby that appeared in the video that Staffordshire county council failed to injunct last Friday. Interestingly, Mrs Courtnage assisted the father in resisting imprisonment at an earlier stage. Was the action of removing the newborn baby inevitable, and therefore permissible under article 3, or even necessary, under article 8? The risk is future emotional abuse. The authority accepts that the parents are no immediate risk to their child. Why, then, take this action? The Government are moving towards removing such babies and immediately placing them with adoptive families. This does not appear to me to fit with traditional English family law or the European convention on human rights.
	I have mentioned Toni McLeod before. She featured in the Sunday Express because Durham wanted to take her unborn baby into care because she went on an English Defence League demonstration. She went to Ireland. Sadly, the Health Service Executive in Ireland is now trying to force back to England all the family court refugees. More recently she returned to England and was refused permission to appeal. The case reference is [2013] EWCA Civ 1007. In paragraph 10, the court said
	“Happily, on one basis, this case is not about a mother who is incompetent or unable to provide ordinary, good enough or even good physical and practical care for her children. Unhappily, and frustratingly for all involved, I dare say, particularly the mother and the children, the concern about the mother's ability to parent is more subtle and harder to pinpoint, but it arises from her personality and the potential for the children to be upset by unpredictable actions or words that she may from time to time exhibit.”
	There are still parents leaving the UK to escape the system. I know of two pregnant mothers who have done so: one has gone to France and the other to live with a Belgian social worker, who is appalled at what is being done in England and is therefore willing to look after a mother and child at home.
	I welcome the work of Sir James Munby. He is a good appointment to the challenging task of president and his initial practice directions have been good. However, the Government remain complacent and Parliament should really look at the individual cases. The care system continues not to be accountable. The independent reviewing officer will never be independent while they are on the payroll of the local authority.
	The case of Jimmy Savile have been raised by various people. What is not widely known, although it is in the public domain, is that a journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, aimed to go to Jersey to investigate what had happened in 2011 before it became public. However, she was banned by the UK Border Agency. With some effort from me, the ban was removed and she received a visa earlier this year. She has now been to Jersey, but the issues are already in the public domain. The CCTV that might explain the basis on which somebody was prevented from investigating a serious case of child abuse that came out at a later stage has still not been provided. The Government need to provide some answers on that issue.
	I wrote to all the embassies this year asking whether somebody would like to come to a meeting in the House of Commons to discuss problems with child protection. Fifty-nine people came, representing 30 countries. Although
	not all those countries have complained formally, we should recognise that there are serious concerns about how the system operates.
	Child protection is a complex process that covers a wide range of circumstances. There are some very good practitioners and lawyers who work in the area. As I said, Sir James Munby is a very good judge. However, there is also bad practice. If we tolerate the bad practice, we undermine the more competent people. It is therefore important to look at the wider issues.
	In a sense, there is a constitutional problem. When hon. Members receive complaints from their constituents and write to the Minister, the Minister says, “We don’t comment on individual cases.” Unless we are able to look at the details of individual cases and see whether there are collective problems, we cannot be certain what is going on. I know that the system does a very good job at times, but it also does a very bad job at times. We are not looking at the process systematically.
	Ministers say, “We want more children to be adopted.” That message goes to council leaders who talk to their cabinet member for children’s services. The cabinet member talks to the senior managers and they talk to the more junior managers. The social worker who wants to send a child home then gets fired. I have also heard of a council that, because the expert witness recommended that a child be reunited with their parents, would not pay for the expert witness’s report. That pressure on people to go in a particular direction is driven unintentionally by the Government. I am not saying that the Government intend to achieve that, but that is what is happening on the ground.

Graham Stuart: I am working hard to follow my hon. Friend’s argument. There will undoubtedly be injustice in the system, as there is in any system. However, the case that he talked about in which a social worker in Leicester was fired for wanting to send a child home seems incredible. Will he say more about it?

John Hemming: I have the defence that Leicester city council made to the employment tribunal. I can give the hon. Gentleman a copy of it. The defence was, “We told her not to send the child home, but she wanted to do that, so we fired her.” That went to appeal and the councillors in the authority endorsed the process.
	This is a question of the balance in the civil procedure rules for expert witnesses. Social workers are expert witnesses and they provide assessments. If their assessments are driven by management priorities, they are not following their duty to the court. In fact, they are driven by management priorities a lot of the time. Another error that the Government are making is to reduce the use of independent social workers. Although the repeat player prejudice can be a problem, an independent social worker is not necessarily managerially driven to come to certain conclusions, whereas employees of the council often are. Civil servants make the error of assuming that an assessment is the same, whatever the managerial pressure on the person who made it. The Lashin v. Russia case considered the question of expert evidence and concluded clearly that such evidence has to be produced by somebody who has no interest in the outcome or the conclusion of the case, otherwise they are untrustworthy.
	I am coming up to my 10 minutes, so I will draw my remarks to a close. The fundamental issue is the quality of expert evidence. Much of the expert evidence is driven by the management priorities of the local authority. That is why there are many very bad cases. The Education Committee could look at individual cases, as could the Justice Committee. I have made my point, so I shall sit down.

Lisa Nandy: I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for consistently pushing hard to ensure that the House does not forget these important issues and that we make progress on them.
	I echo the concern of the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) that the Department for Education is not responding to this debate. However, I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), has arrived on the Front Bench and is listening to the debate.
	Since the tragic death of Victoria Climbié nearly a decade ago, it has been widely accepted that child protection is everybody’s responsibility and that, necessarily, all central and local government departments have a role in keeping children safe. Child protection policy is fragmented across different Departments including the Department for Education, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is important that there is a strong lead Department so that a drive comes from somewhere in Government to ensure that the voices, needs and views of children are never forgotten.
	I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, who said that child protection is primarily about education, awareness, early intervention and prevention, and that it should therefore sit with the Minister with responsibility for child protection in the Department that is responsible for children. Will the Minister confirm that the Department for Education is still responsible for such children or whether it has abandoned its child protection responsibilities altogether? The confusion is deeply concerning. Is the Home Office now the lead Department or not?

Graham Stuart: Under the heading, “Who is responsible for child protection?” the Education Committee report stated:
	“It is everyone’s responsibility…In Government terms, child protection in England is the overall responsibility of the Department for Education, which issues both statutory and non-statutory guidance”.
	Would the hon. Lady, like me, welcome an intervention from a Minister to confirm that that is still the case or whether the situation has changed?

Lisa Nandy: I would welcome that.
	It is my view that we must start with the child if we are to tackle child protection. I have a huge amount of respect for the work that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has done on children in the immigration
	detention system over several years. He will know from that experience that some children are at higher risk of harm, including migrant and trafficked children, children with disabilities, child offenders and children in care, to name just a few of the groups that I have worked with over the years. It is important that there is a focus on those children from a Department whose primary focus is the protection and welfare of children. Many of the Departments that come into contact with those children have responsibilities that conflict with children’s welfare and safety. It is therefore essential that the Department for Education takes the lead on child protection. I would be grateful for that assurance from the Ministers who are present.
	I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said so compellingly about the importance of communicating with children, listening to them and believing them. I spoke recently to a group of brave, articulate and inspiring teenage girls in Bradford who had been through the court process. The stories that they told me about what had happened to them and how they had been treated by some, although not all, front-line professionals will stay with me for the rest of my life. It had scarred them deeply.
	I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said about support for parents. One young girl told me, in heartbreaking terms, about how she still cannot talk to her mum, who is a single mum, about what happened to her because her mum cannot believe that it happened to her child without her knowledge. We need to do much more to support parents if we are to support children.
	I also endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said about the courts. I recently met a group of young boys and girls in Nottingham who had been through the court process. One of them had repeatedly been called a liar on the witness stand. When I asked her what she had said to the barrister who was calling her a liar, she said, “You weren’t there. You can shut up.” I endorse those words. I am proud that she had the courage to say that to him. I could not have put it better myself.
	The court process had put those children through hell. They had seen the collapse of their cases. They had been called to court several times not knowing what to expect and had then found that the case would not be heard. They had also been told that they would be able to use separate entrances and exits, only to find that they were next to the entrances and exits the people who had abused them were using, and that they were coming face to face with them and their families on the way in and out of court. We should, and must, do better.
	I want to mention briefly the explosion of victim blaming we saw over the summer. A 13-year-old girl was labelled
	“predatory in all her actions…sexually experienced.”
	by the lawyer Robert Colover after she was sexually abused by a 41-year-old man, and the judge took into account that she looked older than her age. A former newspaper owner said that under-age girls were throwing themselves at adult men, and newspaper columnists dismissed a 31-year-old teacher’s sexual abuse of a child
	in his care because she was just a few months away from turning 16. We have to start challenging these attitudes in public.
	There are many things we can do. First, we need to support the social work profession better. In a recent survey of 3,000 social workers, a stark picture was painted of intolerable work loads, unqualified staff assessing children, social workers unable to spend time with the children they were tasked with protecting, and thresholds being revised upwards so that, as one social worker said, “Amber is the new green: children who need and ask for our help are being taken away.” We have to take this issue seriously.
	I was disappointed that the Government did not take on board our call for sex and relationship education to be made available in every school. We need to equip young people with the knowledge, skills and resilience to withstand pressure, and to understand what constitutes acceptable behaviour, including online. We have to get better at preventing, rather than tackling, child abuse. Only 6% of funding in this area is spent on prevention. That is not a smart use of money—it is also an absolute waste of children’s lives and we need to sort it out.
	The role of hotels and bed-and-breakfast establishments in the abuse of children has recently come to public attention. Many Members will know this from their own constituency experience. When police and local councils strongly suspect that abuse is happening, they do not always have the tools they need to tackle it. There have been a number of reports of on-street grooming across the country, including in Oxfordshire and Rochdale, in which young people’s accounts of sexual abuse contain repeated references to hotels and BBs. In one case, the police came across reports from other guests at a hotel on the website TripAdvisor of young girls being abused by older men. That abuse had not been reported to the police by the hotel or anyone else.
	Hotels and BBs were also the location for child sexual exploitation in up to one third of sites visited by the deputy Children’s Commissioner, in her inquiry into sexual exploitation which reported last November. I checked with the Library and it seems that hotels have no specific legal responsibility to register guests under the age of 16—only guests over the age of 16. All they have to do is ask for their name and nationality, so it is hard to track who is using them and when. They do not require a licence to operate unless they sell alcohol, and are under no specific obligation to report child abuse, although they do have general health and safety obligations. That is not good enough.
	Tackling this issue is essential, but not straightforward. It would make no sense to tie up the hotel industry in a complex system of regulation that may not protect children. We know that those who do not recognise their responsibilities will often find ways to avoid them. However, we cannot continue with a situation where some businesses are turning a blind eye to child abuse without any redress whatever. I would like the Minister to make a commitment today for the Department for Education to establish a cross-departmental working group alongside those who work in the industry—hotels, child protection experts, the police, local councils and others—to explore how the legal regulatory framework can sensibly be strengthened to protect children. We know that we have to do more to protect children, and this is one area where we can and should do more.

Andrea Leadsom: We are at greatest risk of dying a violent death when we are less than one year old: in 36% of cases of serious child abuse and death, the victim is less than one year old. Child protection, therefore, stems so much from poor relationships that are set up in the very earliest days of a baby’s life. My serious concern is that while we do so much as a society to try to defend children and young people against the evils perpetrated against them, we are just firefighting. We are seeing an increase in the number of appalling abuses, and Members in all parts of the House have talked about them, but we are not doing something about stopping the causes of the appalling experiences that adults have that make them go on to abuse children. I put it to the Chamber that nobody invents becoming a paedophile, a child abuser or a sociopath—people are not born paedophiles. They become paedophiles as a result of horrifying experiences they have when they are extremely young. This is called the cycle of deprivation. It is absolutely the case that early experiences will go on to determine what sort of person we become.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). He and I have worked on children’s issues for a very long time. I recall him holding a children’s summit in Parliament in 2003, at which I talked on the subject of early years intervention on the day the Victoria Climbié report was published. I would like to read out the comments of Peter Beresford, the professor of social policy at Brunel university, which form the introduction to the 2003 parliamentary inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié:
	“The inquiry must mark the end of child protection policy built on a hopeless process of child care tragedy, scandal, inquiry, findings, brief media interest and ad hoc political response. There is now a rare chance to take stock and rebuild.”
	From that day to this, while neuroscience shows us that all of our later responses to life are set out by our earliest experiences, we in the political world have failed utterly to recognise what we do to a baby in the first two years of life. In that crucial perinatal period—from the moment we are conceived until we are two years old—80% of our brain development takes place. Our infant brain at two years old is 80% of the weight it will be as an adult. If we imagine the correlation with our limbs, we would be walking around at the age of two with great big long arms and legs like a teenager, but with the body of a two-year-old. The brain development of human beings is astonishing—1 million neural connections are made every second in the first year of life.
	We cannot separate a baby’s brain development from its earliest experiences, which are a function of the relationship between the baby and the primary care giver, and that relationship is a function of the primary care giver’s own earliest experiences. What we do time and again is to deal with the consequences of what the red top papers call the evil sadistic paedophiles, the abusers, the criminals and the psychopaths. We fail to see that 25 years previously, when the evil, cruel, sadistic paedophile was a baby, they were probably being evilly, cruelly and sadistically treated. That is the cycle of deprivation, and the sooner the Government acknowledge and accept that, the sooner we can take more steps to try to reverse an epidemic that is becoming worse.
	We are seeing an increase in levels of basic post-natal depression, where parents who cannot cope and do not get the support they need, do not give their baby the loving attention the baby needs. While such babies do okay, when they grow up they will not be able to cope with life. They might become a bully or a victim at school, or they might just muddle on through, but when life throws something at them—they lose their job, their boyfriend leaves them, or they do not have any friends—they struggle to cope, because they do not have the emotional resilience that comes from healthy development. I am sure everyone in the Chamber has seen the neuro-images of the brain of a child aged three who is securely attached. It looks, to use very technical terms, like a lovely cauliflower. If we then look at the brain of a three-year-old child who has been neglected or abused, it looks, to use another technical term, like a shrivelled prune. The developmental consequences of failure to attach can actually be seen.
	What is incredibly important about a baby’s brain development is that when it is born, it does not have a prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is the bit that looks like the cauliflower or the shrivelled prune, but it is not there when babies are born. There is a huge growth spurt between six months and 18 months, which is stimulated by the loving care giver saying, “Aren’t you gorgeous; you’re so beautiful; I really love you”—I do not mean you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but please do not take this as a personal rejection; I am merely trying to give you an illustration. That stimulation—saying “peek-a-boo,” singing songs, talking to and mimicking the baby, looking into its eyes—sparks the growth of the baby’s prefrontal cortex. The baby learns that the world is a good place and that things are fine generally. The baby thus learns to be extraordinarily resilient.
	Are we not lucky that so many of us in this Chamber have had the benefit of good-enough parenting? It is not about being perfect, but about being good enough. What we do not recognise as a society—and this certainly applies to the Government—is that there is a raft, even an epidemic, of people who, temporarily or permanently, have utterly impaired abilities to form relationships. That is usually the result either of their earliest experiences or of the temporary post-natal depression of their mothers. Between one in seven and one in 10 women suffer from post-natal depression. That means approximately 100,000 babies being born every year whose need for attention to their earliest needs is not altogether met.
	The consequences for the mums are terrible. I have known countless parents coming to me to say how utterly guilty and distraught—in some cases, suicidal—they felt about the fact that they did not really love their baby and did not really feel happy to be a parent. We all know that it is supposed to be the most wonderful thing that ever happens to a person, but we do not necessarily all feel that at the time. Feelings of guilt can be absolutely there.
	At the moment, we do not do enough to look after that problem. We have a midwife who ensures the safe delivery of the baby and if it is premature, millions might be spent on neonatal intensive care; if necessary, we will fly baby in a helicopter all around the country to make sure that we keep it alive. If, however, a mother has a full-term, perfectly healthy baby but she is severely mentally ill—as a result of hormonal imbalances or for any other reason, such as a disastrous past—a complete
	postcode lottery applies as to whether that mother will get any support or end up killing herself and the baby, as we see all too tragically and all too often.
	I shall wrap up my speech. I would like to end with the thought that if we are serious about child protection, we need to have a real revolution in support for the perinatal period.

Geoffrey Robinson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). She is extremely knowledgeable about these matters, as are other hon. Members, perhaps much more than I am. I am brought here as a result of a terrible and harrowing case, which has recently shocked the whole nation—the death in Coventry of Daniel Pelka. His parents, now both serving life sentences, having been convicted of murder, were living in my constituency.
	Let me make it clear to all my hon. Friends, two of whom I know are qualified social workers—[Interruption.] Three; I am grateful for the correction. I was impressed by that fact, and I know that these colleagues have been at the sharp end, where things seem to go wrong. What I shall convey today are just my impressions—they are not informed by a depth of study—but I shudder to think what the frontal cortex of Daniel Pelka must have looked like after he was killed by a hammer blow to the head at the age of four and a half. I know that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire is involved with early intervention—a crucial area—and I think she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) held a press conference about it this morning. We cannot leave matters at that, however, or think that things do not happen thereafter. In this particular case of Daniel Pelka, the young boy was going to school in Coventry.
	My first impression, then, is that somebody needs to get a real grip on the serious case review. I looked closely at the baby P case, when the then Secretary of State with responsibility for children and education was presented with what he thought was a very poor serious case review from Haringey council. I feared that the same would apply in Coventry, so I pleaded with the council for some element of public accountability. This is a public issue, and I have been astonished by the wide geographical spread of the letters of support I have received since Daniel’s case became public. I have been sent letters from right across the kingdom on a scale that compares with almost any other topic during my long period in this House. This was a public case; I made the case, and then one saw the resistance building up among officials and politicians about having the issue opened in that way.
	I was reassured because the new leader of council, a long-standing friend of mine, issued a very good statement following this case, making her position clear. She said:
	“I promise we will not absolve ourselves of responsibility. We’ll not shirk any difficult decisions we will have to make as a result of the review, and we will deliver any changes needed. We will be honest and transparent in the way we do this.”
	I am sure she means that and that she will do that. The problem is, though, how good will the report be? Can it
	really be brutally honest and transparent about what happened in this case? At the crucial period—aged between three and a half and four and a half years old—a young boy was going to school while his parents were inflicting cruel physical abuse on him. It is difficult to come to terms with the sheer evil involved in starving this poor child and then literally hammering him to death. There was not even a motive for it, unlike in some cases where psychological factors might be at play or previous unfortunate personal experiences might be responsible. The motive in this case seems to be sheer evil; that is what appears to have driven these parents.
	In circumstances such as this, it is natural for those responsible to recoil and not to want an outside independent view on their performance in the case. The council did not accept the case for that; it went for a standard SCR. I do not know how Amy Weir will perform as the chair of the Coventry local safeguarding children board. Let us wait for the review; I do not want to prejudge it. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that we will have it. It has not taken long; it has not been one of the those protracted reviews that lose all topicality by the time they are published. Unfortunately, public interest issues tend to go in waves. That said, we should get the result on Tuesday next week. I might then have further occasion to comment on it here.
	We do not expect answers today, but I would like the Minister to say whether he is entirely satisfied with the present system of serious case reviews. Is there not a need for a more independent element to be built into the process right from the beginning? The importance of independence inevitably arises when one sees the nervous, cautionary reaction—aimed at self-preservation—of those involved in such cases. I know that a teacher of Daniel who reported aspects of this case subsequently had a nervous breakdown. The issues and effects are not purely one-sided.
	My second thought for the Minister is that although co-ordination between the different departments is obviously necessary—all the departments have to be educated—if we adopt the principle that everybody is responsible, what happens in reality is that nobody takes responsibility. This is where things became unstuck in Coventry. Nobody seems to have felt, “Gosh, this is my case. I have got to look after this. I am responsible.”
	We heard the Chairman of the Education Select Committee say that the lead organisation was the Department for Education, which I understand still includes responsibility for children, but that was not clear in Coventry. The first thing several councillors said was that they needed to find out who was responsible—social services or education? In the end, it seems to have been education. I understand that the report has already been sent to London education departments. I hope that it was not for vetting, but as a courtesy—we shall see. It seems odd that those most involved do not see the report, but that the Department for Education sees it in its finished state before it is made public or before it is even shown on a confidential basis to MPs and others in the area.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said that Members of Parliament should take an interest. We should and we do, but although we can take initiatives, it is no good expecting us to be effective. I raised the issue of Daniel Pelka with the department, and was assured that it was in hand. The
	next thing we knew, the boy was dead. MPs do not have a locus. We can highlight, push and prod, but we must recognise the limitations of our own abilities and responsibilities. So the second thought that I want to leave with the Minister is whether we can ensure that the lead responsibility is much more clearly established where it matters, which is within local authorities. We must of course co-ordinate the police, social services departments and education departments, and all other interested departments, but unless the lead department is clearly identified, we shall not secure the positive reaction and the intensity of interest that such cases clearly demand.

Claire Perry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: I am sorry, but I will not, because I think I have only three minutes left. On another occasion, I shall be delighted to do so.
	May I leave the Minister with one last thought? Since I have become involved, through the Daniel Pelka case, in an issue on which I must confess that I had not been active in the House before, I have been lobbied—I do not know whether we are still allowed to use that word, but I have certainly been contacted and briefed very heavily—about mandatory reporting by various good organisations, including the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, which I believe is well respected. I do not know whether the Department has considered the issue, but, because time is short, I will send the Minister a fuller brief on it, along with some background notes which I hope his officials will look at and at least reply to.
	I realise that this is replete with all sorts of dangers, particularly on the legislative front—unintended consequences and all that—but those organisations deserve at least an answer. They have been campaigning long and hard, and I should be grateful if the Department would examine the issue and think about whether anything can be done. I presume that some sort of amendment to the Childcare Act 2006 would be required, although I am not sure what it would involve.
	Can we have an answer? Can those organisations have an answer? I have raised this matter on their behalf, and I hope that the Government will consider it seriously. Let us see what they really think about it.

Meg Munn: I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting a debate on this important issue. In my speech, I shall concentrate on the issue of sexual abuse of children in religious institutions. I have met survivors of abuse and their advocates on a number of occasions. They endured terrible suffering, and they seek justice. They have called for an independent commission of inquiry into the sexual abuse of children by clergy in religious institutions, not just in schools.
	A public inquiry or similar process would undoubtedly bring the systematic abuse of children into the open, and would outline the lessons of their experiences. An inquiry would highlight the betrayal and abuse of trust by religious institutions—institutions that are meant to look after the spiritual and moral welfare of children.
	Time and again, children and vulnerable adults were betrayed by those whom they trusted. Even today, victims struggle to be heard. Known abusers are defended by senior clergy. Some parents prefer to believe the priest rather than their own child. There are cover-ups, witnesses are fearful of coming forward, and members of some faiths are reluctant to go to the authorities because they do not belong to the same faith.
	I have looked into the issue in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on child protection, and have concluded that, while it is essential for us to find some way of ensuring that victims are heard and believed, a public inquiry may not be the best way of ensuring that we do what we need to do to protect children today. I support other Members’ call for an overall inquiry, and indeed I have written to Ministers about the issue, but now we can do better. The Government can show that they are listening and understanding by addressing current failings.
	Reasons for sexual abuse are found not in the teachings of any faith or religion, but in individuals who take advantage of the power, position, trust and authority vested in them by an institution. There is evidence that faith leaders are taking some steps to ensure that cases are not covered up, and that they are establishing robust safeguarding policies that includes support for victims. There have been changes in the way in which the Catholic Church and the Church of England deal with sex abuse cases, especially following the Nolan report and the more recent Butler-Sloss review. The Bradford Council for Mosques and the Bradford safeguarding children board have worked together to produce a paper entitled “Children do matter”. The Methodist Church has a safeguarding policy, and has issued a joint statement with the Church of England on guiding principles. The Methodists are undertaking a systematic review of sexual abuse cases dating back to 1950, in order to establish exactly what happened and what the response was. That is an excellent move, which I would like other faiths to emulate. Lessons can be learnt, and our children can be better protected.
	However, there is also evidence of continuing denial. Recent reports have suggested that a year ago, Cardinal Keith O’Brien blocked a similar review of abuse in the Catholic Church in Scotland. We need to look at the behaviour of faith institutions, and to ask whether the proposals for change are sufficient and the pace of change fast and widespread enough. We need to understand that part of the abuse by people who represent faiths stems from the fact that we expect more of them when they are looking after our children. This is not just the abuse of trust that we see elsewhere; it is a fundamental betrayal of the beliefs held by members of those faiths.
	Organisations, including religious organisations, can and must do all that they can to protect children, deter paedophiles, and ensure that perpetrators are stopped and face justice. They must change a culture that minimises both the prevalence of abuse of children and its effects. I was disturbed to discover from the internet that an organisation called Catholic Voices, which seeks to portray the Catholic Church positively in the media, is minimising the issue of abuse by Catholic priests. Its argument is that it is much more prevalent in society in general than it is in the Church. Does it not understand that organisations which are in regular contact with children must ensure that those who work with children in their name are
	their responsibility? Those are astonishing statements from a religious organisation that should be doing all it can to prevent abuse. Contrition and action are what is needed, not denial and deflection.
	It is not just the Catholic Church that needs to do more. The Church of England has only just apologised for the scandal of the abuse that took place in Chichester, and there are worrying reports from other faiths. A new book by a Muslim woman describes abuse that she suffered at the hands of her imam, and there has been a Channel 4 documentary about alleged cover-ups by rabbis in some Jewish communities. However, this is not just the responsibility of religious organisations. We must ask whether the law and the guidance are sufficient to protect children in religious institutions today. Are we being complacent, and therefore complicit, when we say, as the children’s Minister said in a letter to me,
	“we encourage organisations to continue to improve their practices to ensure that today’s children are kept as safe as possible”?
	The duties of all schools to safeguard and promote the welfare of children are made clear in the Education Act 2002, which—along with additional guidance—places a statutory duty on all schools to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and states that all schools should have a child protection policy and child protection procedures in place. The re-launched guidance entitled “Working together to safeguard children” states that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, which is welcome. Safeguarding is clearly the responsibility of everyone, particularly those who work with children. However, the list in paragraph 8 of the introduction makes no specific mention of anyone who holds religious office. The only mention of faith organisations appears at the end of chapter 2, which deals with organisational responsibilities. Faith institutions must be in the mainstream throughout documents on safeguarding.
	Two other documents, “Safeguarding children and safer recruitment in education” and “Dealing with Allegations of Abuse against Teachers and other Staff”, specify a duty to report abuse that is proven, but the institution concerned can make a judgment on whether there is not a case. Clearly judgments must be made, but we also need to have better oversight of the systems in schools and a mechanism to check that cases are being reported appropriately.

William Cash: Given the tragedies that have occurred in the Catholic environment, I hope the hon. Lady has not overlooked the fact that the hierarchy of England and Wales, through the Archbishop of Westminster in particular, has set up a safeguard arrangement, which is being followed through effectively.

Meg Munn: What I am saying is that it is the role of organisations to do precisely that, but I am coming on to question whether faith organisations are taking that seriously. When an organisation within the Catholic Church puts on a website the other side of the coin on abuse and talks about minimising it, surely we can expect our faith organisations to say, “Not in my Church, not by my priests,” and to do everything they can to ensure that, rather than saying, “Well, it’s not as bad as it is elsewhere.” That is not an acceptable attitude and speaks of denial and deflection. That is what I am saying.
	I know that the Department says that it does not specify in relation to faith schools because they can be of different types, but I worry that this is not clearly understood by those who run faith organisations. The make-up of local safeguarding children boards as set out in section 13 of the Children Act makes no mention of religious organisations and “Working Together” is silent on the issue. The Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation action plan contains no specific action to work with religious institutions to address the issue. We treat religious institutions differently when we do not name them.
	I believe there is more we need to do. The Children’s Minister in correspondence with me has said he believes that mandatory reporting—the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) —is already in place. He states that any organisation must refer cases to the Disclosure and Barring Service and failure to do so is a criminal offence, but this relates only to issues about staff. Is it really clear, particularly for religious organisations and voluntary organisations, that they must report suspected instances of abuse to the relevant agencies?
	Some countries have mandatory reporting, and I know that that is not the answer to all the problems, but I understand that those campaigning for mandatory reporting are outraged, as we all should be, that a perceived gap in legislation means that a more senior member of a religious organisation believes that it is all right to move the person on, or ignores concerns, or makes up their mind to deal with the matter in house. This is not acceptable.
	Child abuse is the scandal that we must tackle. I fear that the Department for Education is complacent and must urgently review law and guidance to ensure that it is an explicit requirement on religious organisations. Specific reference to all religious and faith institutions and their duty to safeguard children and vulnerable adults must be made in all appropriate legislation and guidance to leave no room for ambiguity. We cannot be reluctant to deal with the problem for fear of accusations of discrimination and prejudice. We owe it to children to take action.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on setting the scene and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on her contribution. They told us what this is all about.
	I can well remember my boys as children watching Jimmy Savile in “Jim’ll Fix It” and wanting to have their dreams come true by meeting him. I am glad they never had their dreams come true. I cringe every time I think about that loathsome person. His name is a reminder of the fact that we have lessons to learn, and a year on the question, through this debate, is whether we have learned those lessons. As MPs we all have constituents coming to us with issues of children who have been abused, or who have a partner who has abused them. Sometimes the allegations are true; sometimes perhaps they are not, but we have to advise on the correct way to handle those situations and the right people to see, and we do that.
	We read the horror stories in the NSPCC report, which stated that more than half a million children and young people are estimated to have been a victim of maltreatment by a parent or guardian last year and, indeed, every year. All of a sudden the magnitude of the problem becomes very real. There is still a part of me that thinks that that figure cannot be right. How could it be? How could half a million children and young people be maltreated every year? We are a civilised country. We have a high moral code. Can that happen? The problem is that the figure is all too accurate for known cases, and I am shocked at how many children do not get a real childhood. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) underlined the importance of the early years of childhood and the bond between mother and child. Too often in those half a million cases the bond between mother and child or father and child has not been real. Had it been, perhaps we would not have had such cases.
	When we think of our own childhood, we remember the scrapes we got into with our brothers and other children and the tellings-off that we got, but underpinning everything that happened to us was a mum and a dad who loved us and were prepared to try to guide us. The thought that so many children in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole do not have that understanding saddens me greatly, and it makes me more determined as a Member of Parliament to ensure that adequate protections are in place for our children.
	As I read the report I became more shocked to understand that for every child who is known to the authorities as being abused and on the register, there are another estimated eight children who have suffered maltreatment. Fifty-six children were killed last year, which is still more than one a week. Other Members have outlined those cases. More than one in five children experience serious physical abuse, sexual abuse or severe physical or emotional neglect. Things must change and we must move on.
	Since the recent Savile case and the other child exploitation cases that have been mentioned, the National Association for People Abused in Childhood has had a 60% rise in referrals, cases and phone calls. The NSPCC reports that calls to the helpline have increased from 44,500 in 2011-12 to 51,000 in 2012-13, and more recently it has reported an 84% rise in sexual abuse referrals during June and July 2013 compared with the same period in the previous year. People are more aware and they are coming forward. So what are we going to do to help? I know that there are stringent rules for working with children. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) referred to the need for Churches to respond positively, and I agree wholeheartedly.
	I want to describe what we are doing in Northern Ireland, because it is important that a marker is put down. Churches have introduced a code of conduct and are specifically addressing the issues. I give the example of my own Church, where we took a stand on the need to do those things. In my Church anyone who works with children in any shape or form must attend a yearly child protection seminar and be police- checked every few years, but is that enough? Is there enough understanding? When I listen to some of the women who have worked with children voluntarily for years, they say they are saddened that they can no longer pick up a crying child and put them on their knee to comfort
	them. They must get down to the child’s level, pat their arm and speak soothingly. The bus driver must be very aware of these issues and cannot be alone with a child. If he is hugged, he must step away quickly, ensuring that someone else has noted his physical reaction. These rules may seem extreme to some people, but they are what the Churches and other bodies that work with children feel they must do to ensure protection from those who in the past have abused their positions or abused children.
	The more reports I read concerning abuse, the more wary I see we must become. One of the NSPCC’s recommendations is something which I know many Churches and youth clubs are having their leaders trained in—that is, detection and quick action. The NSPCC report says:
	“We need to look at the behaviour of institutions, public services and professionals where failure to report concerns has prevented action from being taken either to protect or intervene at an earlier stage. We need to encourage them to discuss and report their concerns about child abuse to ensure no more children slip through the net.”
	How true that is and what an onus it places on each of us in this place and on every person who works with a child. We have to be aware of such things and there must be measures in place to help with raising this awareness. There must also be support for victims, which is sometimes forgotten, but it is underlined by reported cases. We see that in our constituency work as MPs. People should be trained not only to spot the signs of abuse, but to help to deal with it.
	I recently arranged a seminar in my constituency. I brought people from Barnardo’s down to the local town hall and invited all youth leaders, Churches, teachers and community workers in my area. They were given an insight into what signs to look for and what to do once they had suspicions. More than one teacher told me that they had learned something new. It gave them an awareness of what happens and also taught them what to do next.
	Perhaps the Minister could suggest what additional funding will be made available to the regions of the United Kingdom so that people who work with children can be given the opportunity to receive training on how to deal with child abuse issues, because they do not always know what to do, when to do it and how to do it, and we need to be aware of that.
	Child protection seminars tell us who to report to if we have suspicions that a child is being abused, but we are not trained in how to deal with the situation afterwards. That must be offered to people who give up their time to teach children or who give them a safe place to play or hang out with their friends. Will the Minister give us an assurance that additional help will be made available so that people can receive that training, which could make all the difference to the life of a child?
	Time has beaten me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and there is so much more to say. Although steps have been taken to address child protection, I believe that a lot more can and should be done. People should be aware of the signs, know when to flag something up and, more importantly, know who to flag it up to. We need the involvement of the community groups, the youth clubs, the homework clubs, and the Church organisations such as the Boys Brigade and the Campaigners, which are run by unpaid volunteers who have a love for their
	children. We cannot afford to have voluntary sector organisations become so frightened about what they can and cannot do and so unsure about how to raise suspicions that they pack it all in. A little bit of knowledge can made a difference to the life of a child. Rather than merely saying that each organisation should have a child protection officer in place, we should be making available the training to ensure that all those who work with children know the signs and the next steps to take.
	I see my constituents who lovingly give up their time to work with children, and that little bit of attention can make all the difference to a shy child. It can help with their education and make them feel loved. We should ensure that the voluntary sector has all the help and support it needs to help and support children. This House shines better when we agree on issues. Today we all agree on this, and we will agree on a strategy. I urge everyone to put their shoulders to the plough and see that we get the work done for the safety and protection of child and adult alike.

Sarah Champion: I start by echoing everything my colleagues on both sides of the House have said and hope that the Government will listen to our recommendations, because there is so much agreement on the themes that have been discussed and the changes that need to be made.
	I am hugely proud to be the MP for Rotherham. The town has an esteemed industrial history, a strong sense of community and many reasons to proclaim its civic pride. We have a multitude of success stories in manufacturing and small business, as well as three leading further education colleges. However, for some time a shadow has been cast across the town in the form of persistent allegations of failures by key institutions to protect our children. The allegations have been coupled with prosecutions for child sexual exploitation in the town.
	The term “child sexual exploitation” is used to cover a broad range of illegal activity, from seemingly consensual relationships or informal exchanges of sex for attention, gifts or cigarettes through to very serious organised crime. Young people can be subject to physical and sexual violence and can be put at risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Their families can suffer threats, violence and significant psychological distress, disruption and even fragmentation.
	Peer-on-peer child sexual exploitation happens too and can take various forms. For example, young people are sometimes used to “recruit” others by inviting them to parties where they will then be introduced to adults or forced to perform sexual acts on adults. Technology can also play a significant role, with young people being cajoled into using mobile technology as a way of distributing images of abuse.
	It is vital to understand that both perpetrators and victims can come from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Child sexual exploitation is not a crime restricted to British Pakistani males or white British girls, despite the media coverage of high-profile cases. Indeed, recent findings have highlighted the fact that girls of Asian origin are frequently the subjects of this heinous crime themselves.
	There is also a perception that child sexual exploitation only affects children in care. Looked-after children do account for a disproportionate number of the victims of sexual exploitation and can be particularly vulnerable. An estimated 20% to 25% of victims are looked-after children, with only 1% of the child population being in care. However, the majority of children who are exploited are still living at home when it happens.
	Another false perception is that it only affects young women. In truth, boys and young men are also targeted. The full extent is not known as boys, in particular, are highly reluctant to come forward. Nevertheless, one in 10 of the young people receiving support from Barnardo’s for this crime are boys, and in some services the proportion is significantly higher.
	It is also important to acknowledge that women can be perpetrators of this crime. For example, in a case currently being tried in Sheffield the alleged gang leader is a woman. Although such examples are rare, it is more common that female involvement is in facilitating the abuse. The inquiry led by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner found that when women and girls were identified as perpetrators, their role was primarily, although not exclusively, to procure victims. The sad and hidden truth behind such activity is that there is often a cycle of abuse at work, with many of those women and girls having been sexually exploited themselves.
	There are no reliable figures for the total number of children experiencing sexual exploitation. The collection of data is a huge issue and there is no standardised system for data collection, something on which the Home Affairs Committee has made several recommendations. However, child sexual exploitation is being unearthed wherever it is being investigated. Further work by the Government is required to determine the full extent of the problem. In addition, the importance of all agencies sharing information in the interests of child safeguarding must be addressed. Currently, children are vulnerable because information is not always shared between them. We must move away from the excuse of confidentiality when it comes to protecting children. A child’s safety must be the priority.
	Much has been written in the press about how Rotherham is not doing enough to protect its young people from this horrendous crime. I can assure the House that since being elected I have worked closely with South Yorkshire police and Rotherham metropolitan borough council to find out whether our young people are getting the protection they deserve. It is totally inaccurate to say that Rotherham is doing nothing to prevent this crime and prosecute abusers. Although more can always be done, and by the council’s own admission it has not handled historical cases well, I now believe that there is a commitment and drive by the services in Rotherham to protect every child, and I welcome the fact that the council has commissioned an independent inquiry.

Lisa Nandy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way despite the short time available. I just want to reflect on the fact that sometimes it is the areas that have experienced these horrific crimes that are getting to grips with the problem and becoming leaders in dealing with it. Perhaps a lesson for the House and for Ministers is that we need to look closely at those areas
	where such awful cases have not come to light and ensure that they are doing the same things that my hon. Friend talks about in relation to her constituency.

Sarah Champion: I appreciate my hon. Friend making that case. As I have mentioned, wherever we look we find such crimes, but a lot of people are not looking, and that is my worry.
	It is important that services are open to external scrutiny and are accountable to the people they serve. From my research, it seems clear that the only way to tackle child sexual exploitation is by services working collaborative. The key focus must be on preventing, protecting and pursuing: preventing young people from becoming a victim; protecting those who show signs of being at risk of becoming a victim; and pursuing those who commit such horrific crimes. Realistically, local authorities, the police, the voluntary sector and health and education services all need to share their experience, data and resources if they are effectively to tackle and prevent this crime.
	Rotherham works collaboratively. Its child sexual exploitation service includes specialist child abuse police officers, social workers, specialist health workers, parents, youth workers and voluntary sector representatives. Its aim is to reduce sexual exploitation through deterrence and prosecution, and it significantly enhances the effectiveness of all agencies through joint information sharing, planning of assessments and investigations. I am pleased that Rotherham has adopted that working method but extremely concerned that it is not a requirement across the country. The current situation means that whether a local area has a good support team is genuinely a postcode lottery. That is not good enough, because it means that children are being put at risk unnecessarily. I urge the Government to make multi-agency safeguarding hubs a requirement in every area.
	I have spoken about data collection, collaborative working and statutory requirements, but what this debate is really about is children and young people being abused. The effect of sexual exploitation on a child or young person can be long term and highly damaging. It can lead to difficulties in making and sustaining relationships with others, feelings of worthlessness and shame, loss of confidence and low self-esteem. It is essential that we always remember the victims of these crimes and do all that we can to support them. These are young people whose childhood has been stolen from them, and their future, if handled incorrectly, could be damaged too.
	We need to ensure that the process of addressing the crime does not become another form of abuse. I was horrified to find out that a Rotherham victim had been on the stand for seven weeks during the court process. That is unimaginable to me, and it should never be allowed to happen. The victims should automatically be given counselling and as much support as they require. Indeed, I would extend that to ensure that the whole family received support, as the damage caused by this crime can spread widely.
	On a personal level, I am interested in determining whether existing legislation is appropriate for tackling the crime, and I will be working with Barnardo’s on this topic in the coming months. I am also supporting the campaign led by Paula Barrow and assisted by the @Mandatenow coalition calling for a “Daniel’s law”, which would make it mandatory for professionals working
	with children to report signs of possible abuse. As my colleagues have mentioned, four-year-old Daniel Pelka was starved and beaten over a period of months before his death. Staff, teaching assistants and others at his school observed his desperate attempts to forage for food, his severe weight loss and the numerous bruises and injuries he suffered. There is currently no legal requirement for anyone working with children in the UK to report suspected or known abuse either to the appropriate local authority officer or to the police. Without such a law in place to support staff and protect children, effective safeguarding will never be achieved. However, this is not only the responsibility of professionals. Local communities play an essential part in identifying not only those at risk but those who have the potential to commit these crimes. We all have a duty of care to be diligent and to report suspicious behaviour to the police. Unless we do so, this vile crime will continue unchecked.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak today and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for bringing the debate to the Chamber.
	I am aware that much of today’s debate has focused on the protection of children from sexual abuse, but I would like to highlight some of the generic failures in our child protection system, as it is those failures that often lead to the poor detection of such abuse. The question of how to protect our children from significant harm has troubled successive Governments since the abhorrent murder of Maria Colwell. Sadly, the fact that her murder was followed by that of Victoria Climbié, Peter Connelly and more recently Daniel Pelka indicates that, despite the best intentions, the system can never be infallible; nor can it account for the horrors of human action.
	Children have a wealth of professionals involved in their lives, and child protection is very much in the public psyche, yet opportunities for intervention and successful safeguarding are often missed. Those opportunities are missed because social workers, police, teachers and health professionals are operating in highly bureaucratic, constantly restructured and underfunded services to such a degree that they inherently retreat into their own cultures and service demands, instead of fostering good, robust multi-agency practices.
	The constant scapegoating and poor image of the social work profession has also permeated the minds of the public and the wider agencies to such a degree that social work knowledge and expertise are often undermined. Each decision a social worker takes as a lead professional has to be ratified and agreed by a number of other professionals, some of whom have not even met the child concerned. It is easy to see how children go unnoticed in such an adult-led agenda. All too often, the result is that social workers have to placate courts and other professionals, and meet management targets, to such a degree that children are not seen as frequently as they should be, and as a result are hurt, injured or, in extreme cases, murdered. The lack of communication between agencies was cited as a contributory factor to the deaths of Maria Colwell, Victoria Climbié, Peter Connelly and Daniel Pelka. Maria was murdered in
	1973, and Daniel in 2013. The tragedy is that, despite 40 years having passed, the reasons cited for their untimely deaths are still the same.
	Lord Laming’s inquiries into the deaths of Victoria and Peter resulted in the Labour Government introducing the Children Act 2004, the “Working together to safeguard children” document and the “Every child matters” White Paper. In early 2010, Professor Eileen Munro was asked to review child protection procedures. The recommendations in all those reports are largely sound, and are ones that most professionals would subscribe to. The difficulty each time has been that the implementation has not matched the vision, and the progress on the recommendations has been incredibly slow.
	The inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on social work published this year states that
	“the social work picture is one of deteriorating, not improving, children’s services departments, excessive bureaucracy working against, not in support of practitioners, IT systems that are not fit for purpose, dangerously high caseloads for too many social workers, low morale and concerns about a disconnect between the reform agenda and those on the frontline”.
	Since 2010, the system has been further weakened by Government cuts to a number of organisations that would have been able to alert services to potential abuse and offer another layer of monitoring for the high-level cases in which children are at extreme risk. The Munro review recommended more preventive services, yet those services are disappearing under the same Government who asked for the review.
	In a time of unprecedented local authority cuts, the reality is that of shifting thresholds. For some children who are deemed at risk, cheaper options are being touted—options that would maintain them in the home in a risky environment, as opposed to the high-cost option of placing them in foster care, where they would be safe.
	What worries me further is the uncertainty over probation services. Multi-agency public protection arrangements are forums that manage high-level offenders, including child-sex offenders and those who pose a risk to our children. The Government’s plans for probation are unclear. Concern has been expressed to me that, among other changes, multi-agency public protection arrangements might be outsourced to different areas of the country. That would mean a child-sex offender, perhaps in my constituency, being monitored from Leeds. That would be unacceptable and would place children at high risk of harm.
	Child protection is about early intervention. The first three years of any child’s life are the most vital to cognitive and motor development, yet Sure Starts that specialise in that area are being closed across the country. Studies completed by Professor Harriet Ward of Loughborough university highlighted the incongruence between the rights of the child and those of their parents and carers, and the lengthy court processes that can delay pertinent decisions regarding a child’s welfare in those early years.
	The principle in the Children Act 1989—maintaining a child at home or in the family unit—is well meaning, but has often in practice resulted in chronic and long-term neglect being overlooked. I have witnessed first hand the devastating effects of children being maintained at
	home for too long, being in limbo in foster care and awaiting adoption. Sadly, at times, the window for adoption, if that is deemed the best outcome for a child, has closed while their case has been locked in care proceedings for too long. I therefore welcome the news of proposed changes to the public law outline, which will ensure swifter conclusion of care proceedings, although I am concerned that the Government do not grasp what is happening on the ground.
	Most local authorities and courts, in anticipation of the change, have been working towards swifter conclusions within the impending proposed 26-week time limit, but I suggest that the majority of authorities will struggle to do that. The average time given by the courts for a parenting assessment is 12 weeks, and assessments for wider family members can take just as long. I wonder whether that rushed decision making has worsened the situation of the children in those authorities that have achieved those time scales. I would be interested to see the repeat cases that come back into the court arena.
	A 26-week time scale might be achievable in isolation, but when most social workers are operating with difficult IT systems in bureaucratic, target-led, underfunded environments with case loads beyond safe levels and reduced legal support, all these changes are doing is increasing pressure and leaving social workers with less time to do what they are trained to do—work effectively with children and their families.
	Simple, clear systems and less paperwork, backed up by sound legislation that accounts for the fluidity and reality of working in an environment that is not static and recognises that not all children fit one box, as well as a halt to the onslaught of cuts, would go some way to easing the pressures in our child protection system and minimise the risk of further tragic harm being done to our children.
	I would like to leave this thought with the Chamber: how many times as Members of Parliament do we truly see the results of the child protection legislation we pass? This is a closed and specialised area. I have seen it at its best and at its worst. Now I am in this place, I hope to contribute to making our child protection system the best it can be, so that we can minimise the chances of further harm being done to our children.

Meg Hillier: It is a pleasure to speak in a debate with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), both of whom have done a great deal to ensure that the matter is on the agenda. I congratulate them on securing this important debate.
	I have had a long-standing interest in child protection, through my time as an Islington councillor—I chaired the neighbourhood services committee, which dealt with some of the worst outcomes of the child abuse scandals in Islington council—and my three years as Home Office Minister responsible for the protection of vulnerable adults and children. This is an ongoing issue.
	Following my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), I rise to speak particularly about issues of witchcraft and possession, and how they affect child abuse in this country. I pay tribute to AFRUCA—Africans Unite Against Child Abuse—and particularly
	to Debbie Ariyo, who set up that charity and does a great deal to ensure that families affected by the issue, and professionals, get support. AFRUCA raises awareness, and provides information, education, and advocacy for victims and families, as well as other services for families. I know the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is aware of its work and has supported it.
	The 2001 census suggested there were 587,000 Africans living in the UK. That was surely an underestimate, and the number has definitely increased in size, due partly to birth rate. However, among Africans of all nations, who contribute so much to our country and particularly my constituency, we have also seen a belief in witches come with that migration. Whether it is “ndoki” in Congolese, “jinn” in Tanzania, or the “aje” or “awozi” of Nigeria, the concept of witchcraft has taken root in some churches in my constituency and elsewhere.
	I do not have time to go into all the details of this horrific crime, but once a child has been identified as a witch, they may be subject to psychological and emotional abuse, physical abuse to “beat” the devil out physically, and in some cases families send their children back home to be dealt with—teachers sometimes discover that through bruises on the body. There is often neglect and isolation from others, sexual abuse as a result of that neglect, and lack of protection. Often, violent exorcism is carried out by a faith leader. Some of the bogus pastors identified by AFRUCA charge families money to exorcise, and sometimes use violence to do that. There can be real shame, which often leads to domestic abuse. For example, a father might be told that his child is possessed and that the mother is responsible or is also possessed. The shame on the family is such that domestic violence can result in the home.
	There are many aspects to the issue that I do not have time to cover in total. Some research has discussed ritual abuse, but estimates for the extent of that are sketchy and it is not what I intend to focus on today.
	The suspicion of witchcraft is not exclusive to African communities, but it has come to my notice partly through my African constituents. Traditional beliefs and some Christian beliefs often include belief in a spirit possession, and factors that can increase suspicion, such as poverty due to a lack of jobs and success, lead to increased accusations of children being involved in witchcraft. The main issues identified by AFRUCA involve the far-reaching devastation caused by accusations of witchcraft, some of which I have touched on. They include the vulnerability of communities to rogue pastors—I mentioned charging for exorcism—and the belief that the issue can be dealt with within the community is powerful and difficult for the Government, or anyone, to penetrate. I will ask the Minister some questions on that in my concluding remarks. There is also a lack of protection for vulnerable families.
	AFRUCA has been trying to work out the extent of the problem, and estimates there are about a dozen serious cases a year. From January 2011 to February 2012, 11 cases were identified, including one of a child with cri du chat syndrome who was accused of possession and physically abused. I know that in Nigeria there is a book that explains to pastors and others how to identify children who are possessed, including children over six months who are crying too much. The book would be illegal in the UK, but it exists and, given travel backwards and forwards, it clearly influences some people.
	I am pleased that the report by the Education Committee report of late 2012 touches on witchcraft, but it is only one small section of the report. I do not criticise the Committee for that, but it is perhaps a reflection of how the issue is still not widely understood or reflected in society. Too often, perhaps, it is seen as an issue affecting one or two small communities, when its effect is wider than that. I also welcome the fact that the Government have a national plan to tackle abuse linked to faith or belief, although I hope that the Minister would acknowledge there is still a long way to go and that we cannot solve this from Whitehall. However many edicts come from Whitehall or changes are made to the law, they will not solve the problem in those communities where the shame of admitting the problem is very great.
	The Government’s plans do not penetrate into the Churches in my constituency where such abuse might be occurring, and it is also difficult for me to do so as the Member of Parliament. I have talked a lot to religious leaders and intend to do so more, especially with some of the smaller, individual Churches set up by individuals, without a hierarchy. I have also talked to the religious leaders of hierarchical Churches in my constituency, including the Church of England, because they are often the first to meet and talk to victims after their own pastor has suggested a price for exorcism or diagnosed possession. The Church of England’s own diocesan exorcist is based in Hackney and she will carry out an official exorcism if other priests in the area have not had success through conversation and prayer with the people who have come to them for help. I stress to the Minister that it is at this very local level that these issues come out and, in all the work that he and his colleague with responsibility in this area do, they will not have direct links to this activity—how could they?
	It is really important that in any action we find ways to get down to the most local level so that problems can be identified and immediate and swift support made available, whether that is a small amount of finance, access to expertise or knowing when to refer, so that it is not put in a box marked too difficult to deal with or—worse still—“Culturally sensitive, so we can’t go there.” Nothing can trump the need to tackle child abuse, and nothing is culturally sensitive when it comes to the protection of our children.
	The Government need to work out how to reach those small churches, and we all have a role to play in that as elected Members. The previous Home Office Minister with responsibility for child protection issues did not believe that faith leaders should be vetted or, if necessary, barred. I would like the Minister to clarify today whether that is still the view of the Home Office, or whether faith leaders should be vetted like others who work regularly with children.
	In July I visited Nigeria—I chair the all-party group on Nigeria—and met the federal human trafficking agency. Nigeria is the largest source country of trafficked people and many of these children, but it is often difficult to prove a case because of the witchcraft issue. People are frightened of reporting things. The issues of witchcraft extend beyond our borders, but because children and women are trafficked into this country we need to make sure that we have robust strategies for dealing with that, as well as for working with the Nigerian Government. I shall say no more about trafficking because today’s debate is about the more specific issue
	of child abuse, but I have some questions for the Minister. He may not be able to answer all of them today, but I hope that he will write to me and other hon. Members with the answers.
	How many individuals on the boards of our various child protection bodies—I do not need to spell out which they are—have direct experience and understanding of ritual abuse, witchcraft and such matters? In my experience as a Minister, those individuals were very inexperienced in those issues. What is the Government’s position on the vetting and barring of ministers? Will he update the House on the workings of Operation Paladin and whether he has any plans to extend it? Who on the national body that he chairs on the sexual abuse of children has a real understanding of witchcraft? If this is to make any difference to many of my constituents, we need some understanding built into the system. What work are the Government doing with churches, both mainstream and smaller—and especially those run by individuals—to promote best practice and collaboration, and to offer help if a church comes to a council or another body for support? That is key to getting to the nub of the issue. When people want help they should get it, and if they are doing the wrong thing they need to be challenged by law and prosecuted if necessary.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this important debate, in which we have heard excellent and well-informed contributions from both sides of the House. It has been one of the best debates in which I have had the privilege to take part in the House of Commons.
	The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is leading on the issue of child protection for the Government today, and I am pleased that the children’s Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson)—has sat through the debate as well. In the previous Government, the Department for Children, Schools and Families took the role of co-ordinating a cross-Government approach to children and tackling child abuse, and it took that very seriously. It was interesting to hear the Chair of the Education Committee question which Department is now in the lead on the issue. I hope the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will reassure us about that in his response.
	I am concerned that if the Home Office is the lead Department, it is falling a little short in providing the necessary co-ordination between Departments at national level and between different organisations at local level. For example, the Department for Education has only just appointed a chief social worker, has disbanded its expert working group on sexual exploitation, and no longer has a lead person on violence against women and girls. The Department for Communities and Local Government is failing to provide the support or resources needed for effective operation of local safeguarding boards. The Department of Health is failing to intervene to stop the confusion about where child protection responsibilities lie in the reformed NHS structures.

Graham Stuart: I am unaware of the point that the hon. Lady makes about the Department for Communities and Local Government failing to provide properly for local safeguarding boards. Will she expand a little on that?

Diana Johnson: I will say something about the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which has produced a report in which it says that local safeguarding boards are not fully able to perform the duties they have been given. Part of the problem with that is around funding. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point.
	I pay tribute to the excellent contributions made by hon. Members this afternoon. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke with enormous knowledge and expertise as a former children’s Minister, and gave a long, grim list of what has happened over the past 12 months. He called for an overarching inquiry into child protection to pull together the recommendations in the plethora of reports and inquiries that have taken or are taking place. He also referred to a model in Australia that is well worth looking at.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport—such a doughty advocate for children—raised the importance of communicating properly and effectively with children, especially in relation to issues affecting child witnesses. She gave very good examples of how that can be done.
	The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), spoke about some of his Committee’s findings, including on the issue of neglect and the challenges it presents to local authorities, the issues facing older children and young people, and the thresholds for intervention—all important issues.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) spoke incredibly powerfully about Operation Bullfinch and the horrific crimes in Oxford against children and young people, and the need for progress to be delivered for real change in child protection. He called on all Members of the House to find out what is going on in our constituencies.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) spoke about his long-standing interest in care proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) spoke with great knowledge and made a passionate case for a clear lead in Government for child protection, as well as raising the important issue of the use of hotels and bed and breakfasts in cases of sexual exploitation.
	The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) spoke about the need for early years intervention, and gave a memorable, graphic description of a child’s brain—a lovely cauliflower if the child was nurtured, and a shrivelled prune if the child was being abused. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) spoke about the appalling case of Daniel Pelka and made a plea for clear lines of responsibility to be identified.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), who has great experience of child protection issues, spoke about abuse within churches and religious faiths and the need for such organisations to face up to what they need to do to put their houses in order.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the need to provide awareness training, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke knowledgably about issues in her constituency and the need to share good practice. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) talked about the role of social workers with a great deal of experience and knowledge, and raised important questions about probation and how public protection from sex offenders could be compromised by some of the Government’s probation proposals. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who has vast experience at local authority and ministerial level, raised the important issue of witchcraft and what our response to it should be.
	I want to go through a few of the other issues that are pertinent to this debate, and to start with the question of an overarching inquiry, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised at the beginning of the debate. There are the investigations into Jimmy Savile’s conduct and why no action was taken by various institutions. There has been an inquiry into the Waterhouse abuse scandal; the deputy Children’s Commissioner is conducting an inquiry into the culture of grooming; the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society have all produced important reports. There have been a number of serious case reviews, and the Munro and Kennedy reviews. The House has benefited from the excellent reports compiled by Members. The Home Affairs Committee has produced a report on localised grooming, and the Education Committee has completed an inquiry into child protection. In addition, there have been excellent reports from a number of all-party parliamentary groups.
	All these reports have given rise to many recommendations, and each makes recommendations to different bodies and at different levels. We all want to see these recommendations translated into action. Like many other Members, I think it would be ideal if one report was complied—similar to a serious case review—that brings together the various inquiries mentioned in the debate and makes clear recommendations, to be implemented at a local and national level, with clear lines of accountability.
	The operation of the Disclosure and Barring Service, whose job it is to prevent people who pose a danger to children from getting work with children, has been dramatically changed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The changes mean that the DBS seems to be barring fewer people. More than 17,000 people were placed on the barred list in 2009, but so far this year, the figure is 1,400. Perhaps most importantly, the Act dramatically reduced the number of agencies that the DBS can share information with. Indeed, in many cases sharing intelligence with a school or youth club is forbidden, even after a Criminal Records Bureau check is requested. Would the Minister like to comment on those figures?
	The role of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is vital. It has the expertise to profile offenders and to understand the processes of abuse. We need to monitor carefully how it gets on as part of the National Crime Agency. At present, the police are aware of 60,000 cases of peer-to-peer shares of child abuse images a year, but as figures obtained by my hon. Friend the
	Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) show, there were only 1,570 convictions last year. Of course, that may also reflect staffing shortages in regional police forces, who support CEOP’s work but unfortunately are losing thousands of front-line officers.
	I raised in a previous debate the issue of confusion in the NHS as to where responsibility for child protection actually lies. I was told that a Minister would write to me, but I have not had that response. It is disappointing to learn that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is reporting widespread confusion, lack of proper training and a lack of understanding of child protection responsibilities within the NHS.
	It is important that we maintain pressure on the Government to bring in sex and relationship education, because we know that it is an important way to enable children to understand what a proper and loving relationship is. Finally, can the Minister explain what additional resources are being made available to keep children safe when they use the internet?

Damian Green: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) not just on starting the debate in such a knowledgeable way, but on their long-standing contributions on this hugely critical issue. I apologise in advance: I will try to deal with as many issues as possible that have come up, but in 10 minutes I suspect that I will not get to the bottom of what is a very large pile.
	It goes without saying that child protection is an absolute priority for this Government and we are committed to ensuring that children receive the protection they need. Child sexual exploitation is an abhorrent form of child abuse, no matter how, when or where it occurs. It is good that these important issues are centre stage because where child abuse takes place the effects on the victim can be lifelong and devastating. It is vital, therefore, that victims feel empowered to come forward to report abuse and that when they do, they receive the support they need to recover from the trauma of this hateful crime.
	Many Members on both sides of the House have rightly highlighted the responsibility we all have to ensure that we learn the lessons from the terrible cases that have happened in the past few years and that are still emerging. People need to have confidence that we are getting to the truth. Again it goes without saying that anyone who has any information about child abuse or anyone who has suffered abuse, whether now or in the past, should report it to the police.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) raised the issue of the various responsibilities in central Government. The Department for Education is the lead Department for child safeguarding as a whole. That remains so and my hon. Friend the children’s Minister is here for this debate. Given the recent surge in cases of child sexual abuse, the Prime Minister has asked me to lead the national group tackling sexual violence against children and vulnerable people across Government. Therefore, although the cross-Government
	co-ordination function on child sexual exploitation has transferred to the Home Office, the DFE is, as I say, the lead Department for child safeguarding as a whole.
	I will come on to the national group’s work in a moment but I want to deal with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about whether we need an overarching public inquiry. I am happy to keep an open mind on that, but my main priority is that in any of the agencies that are tackling child sexual exploitation no one’s energy and attention should be diverted from the urgent work and changes that need to be taking place now. We need to be learning lessons from the inquiries and investigations that have concluded and that are still going on. The deputy Children’s Commissioner has done valuable work and an extension of her report will come out in the next couple of months.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as many hon. Members have pointed out, we have been through this so many times—my first experience of speaking in this place was in 2003 on the day that the Victoria Climbié report came out—but nothing changes?

Damian Green: I hope that I will be able to explain to my hon. Friend and the House that a lot is changing and in particular a lot has changed as a result of the setting up of the national group, which is made up not just of various Government Departments but the delivery agencies, the inspectorates, the police and the voluntary and community sectors, which are particularly valuable. It has a core focus on reducing the vulnerability of victims, reducing the risks from abuse of authority and power and improving our systems in dealing with these crimes, as well as strengthening local accountability. Helped by members of the group such as the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and Rape Crisis, the group is taking the lessons learnt from recent inquiries and police investigations. It has identified nine areas for action, four of which I have said should receive particularly urgent attention. Since the group was established last April, we have already made progress in these priority areas.
	In July this year I launched the progress report and action plan for the national group, together with our early findings on multi-agency safeguarding approaches. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and others that the multi-agency safeguarding hubs are doing good work to help local areas put in place effective arrangements. I agree with those who said that what happens in local areas will make a difference to children. The MASH that I visited in Staffordshire is certainly doing excellent work in ensuring that there are no cracks through which children can fall.

Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Damian Green: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. If I keep giving way, I will not get through any of the responses that I want to make to points that have been made.
	It is reasonable to ask what the national group has achieved. We have issued new guidance for consultation on protecting children who go missing or run away from
	home or care. On the policing side, the College of Policing and the Director of Public Prosecutions have launched a public consultation on revised guidance for sexual violence victims. It was launched in June and runs until September. Although we are still consulting, the new guidance is already in effect, which is critical if we are to move the focus of investigations away from testing the credibility of victims to testing the credibility of the allegation and ensuring that the police listen to victims.
	In the criminal justice system, we have improved the experience of victims by launching the new criminal justice strategy, which includes significant measures to improve the court process for victims of sexual abuse and exploitation. As the hon. Member for Stockport acknowledged, later this year we shall be piloting measures for recorded pre-trial cross-examination of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. I agree with her that it is important that victims do not have terrible experiences in court.
	On the online front, leading companies have pledged £1 million to the Internet Watch Foundation, which will strengthen the work that it is doing in tandem with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre to identify child abuse images.
	On wider child protection reform, on 21 March this year we published statutory guidance entitled “Working together to safeguard children”, and we have strengthened the role of local safeguarding children boards in holding the local agencies to account, providing funding to the association of independent LSCB chairs to drive forward that improvement and share good practice across the network. We are also continuing to drive improvements in the quality of serious case reviews so that the system learns from past mistakes.
	I was asked whether there would be a review of what went wrong in Oxford and Operation Bullfinch. The LSCB in Oxford has commissioned a serious case review to learn the lessons and will ask precisely what went wrong and make sure that it does not happen again.
	I was asked about hotels and bed and breakfasts. Earlier this week, I attended the launch by the National Working Group Network charity and the Children’s Society of a new toolkit for local practitioners, which I think will be useful.
	The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) raised the Daniel Pelka case. We have strengthened arrangements for serious case reviews and we will see what the case review has to say next week. On the issue of child protection at a local level, everyone who works with children obviously has responsibility. The hon. Gentleman asked whether, if everyone has responsibility, no one has responsibility to avoid it. That is why the local safeguarding children boards have the key and central role and why we have sought to strengthen them.
	Various hon. Members have called for mandatory reporting of concerns. There is already a clear framework in place for all who work with children to report concerns. The statutory guidance is clear that immediate referral should be made to a children’s social worker if there is concern about a child. So I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) that already in a few months many changes have been made.
	Points have been made about culture in the context of Christian Churches and of groups of often predominantly Pakistani heritage men grooming and abusing white British girls. It is worth saying that political or religious sensitivities must not get in the way of preventing and uncovering child abuse. The same laws apply to all of us in this country whatever our background, religion or ethnic origin. There are no excuses for anyone committing this disgusting crime. The vetting and barring arrangements apply to those who are working in a faith context as much as anyone else; I can assure hon. Members of that.
	I thank the many Members who have contributed to a serious and very good debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I sit the Minister down? It is now 3.30 pm and we should have started the next debate. I am sorry that there are not two more minutes for winding up.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered child protection in the UK.

Employment Rights

Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered employment rights.
	Hitherto, discussion of the impact of austerity has focused largely on public services being cut, benefits being slashed, jobs being lost, insecurity becoming rampant, and wages falling—they are now, in real terms, 9% below the 2007 level. However, another process has been going on during this time which is equally relentless and callous but which has not been accorded the attention it deserves. Remedying that is part of the purpose of today’s debate. I refer, of course, to the continuing vicious attack on employment rights.

Julian Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Meacher: No, I do not have time because of the two ministerial statements and the overrunning of the previous debate. A lot of other people wish to speak, and I want to be fair to them.
	Because this attack has been pursued piecemeal and gradually across a wide spectrum of employment law, its cumulative impact has been concealed, but collectively it amounts to something very substantial. Workers with less than two years’ service in their current job have already lost the right to go to a tribunal over unfair dismissal. Very recently, fees of up to £1,200 have been introduced for anyone who wants to make an application to an employment tribunal. Then there are the heartless cuts—drastic cuts of £1,500 to £2,000—in compensation for the innocent victims of crime in occupations that deal directly with the public.
	Now the Government have plans for a further range of attacks on employment rights. Proposals for reducing consultation rights over redundancies are well advanced. The Government want to introduce so-called settlement agreements to make it easier for employers to pressure or bully workers they want to get rid of into resigning. Compensation for unfair dismissal is to be limited. Even though there has been widespread opposition, and only lukewarm support even from business, the Government have still pushed ahead with introducing a new employment status of employee shareholder so that employers can buy out the rights to unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy pay, time to train, and the right to request to work flexibly. The Government want to reduce the protection that TUPE offers to workers who have their job transferred to another business. In addition, leading Tories, including the Mayor of London, are making noises about attacking trade union facility time, increasing thresholds for strike ballots—to levels, I might say, that no politician would dream of allowing with regard to their own election—and making statutory trade union recognition even more difficult.
	This sledgehammer—I do not think that is an exaggerated word, because cumulatively it amounts to that—attack delivered piece by piece to weaken the whole range of employment rights is clearly designed to overturn the social settlement after 1945 and return Britain to workplace conditions similar to those operating in the 1920s and ’30s when employers flaunted
	overwhelming market power. The attack on the Agricultural Wages Board has already removed the last vestige of the wages safety net, which was originally erected by Winston Churchill, and the removal of strict liability from health and safety law means that in future injury victims will have to prove negligence even when their employers have brazenly broken the law.
	The one area of employment law that the Tories have not been able to touch has been those rights provided for by the European Union: paid holidays, health and safety, equal treatment for part-time workers and women, protection when a business is sold off and a voice at work. They are all valuable rights. By repatriating those rights—I think this is a big part of the motive of current Tory Euroscepticism—the Government will make it easier for bad employers to undercut good ones, which was, of course, the reason why Winston Churchill favoured wages boards in the first place; to drive down wages; and to make people who already work some of the longest hours in Europe work even longer hours.

Andrea Leadsom: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Meacher: I am extremely reluctant to give way. I will give way to the hon. Lady, because I respect her, but I will not give way again so as to be fair to everyone who wants to speak.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I just want to make the point that repatriating powers from Brussels is not a back-route attempt to do down the rights of workers; it merely reflects the fact that this Chamber is more than capable of deciding the right rights for workers, and they may be more, not less generous than those determined in Brussels.

Michael Meacher: I think the hon. Lady is being a little disingenuous. The truth is that Conservative Governments in the past have continually whittled away at employment rights. I am not very proud of some of the record of previous Labour Governments, either, but the one body that has ensured that the rights that are so important to so many people are put in place is the much abused EU.
	The policies I have mentioned are unjust and harsh, but the point is that if we want to bring about a dynamic and successful economy—as I think everyone does—this is the last way to do it. A low wage, low skill, low morale, low productivity economy is not the right way to proceed.
	This litany of measures—I will not call them reforms, because they are anti-reforms—have several other dimensions. One of the most glaring is the class basis of all this: grinding down the pay and terms and conditions of the most vulnerable and poorest people at the bottom, while at the same time endlessly amplifying the excessive remuneration and bonuses at the top—greed at the pinnacle, repression at the base.
	Bankers who wrecked the economy are seeing their bonuses increase this year to, I think, more than £6 billion, while ordinary workers are experiencing the longest fall in real wages in this country since the 1870s, with four out of every five new jobs created since 2008 being low paid and often insecure and short-term. Such is the
	state of inequality today that the directors of the biggest companies are now paid—or, rather, pay themselves—more than £60,000 a week, while the national minimum wage is just £200 a week. The Resolution Foundation estimates that 4.8 million workers—one in six of the total work force—are not even paid that: they are paid, illicitly, below the national minimum wage.
	On top of that, we now have a blizzard of zero-hours contracts. A very large number of people—at least 1 million, although I do not know what the truth is and I do not think that anyone else does, either; some put the figure as high as 5 million—have no fixed income or fixed hours by which to plan their lives. The epidemic of agency work, which was used to increase the casualisation of labour and to undermine security, may have largely been quelled as the result of a lot of pressure, particularly from the unions, but we now have a situation in which rogue employers—there are many good employers—have alighted on bogus self-employment and the mandatory Work programme, alongside increasing the normalisation of zero-hours contracts, as the latest artifice to pay workers less and to weaken their terms and conditions.
	Let me describe the situation for Members, because we in this House do not experience it. The abuse of zero-hours and agency work is devastating. It means that people run out of money during the month and that borrowing from payday lenders is routine. It means that people have to look for additional employment, if that is allowed by their first employer. It means high levels of anxiety. People have no savings or contingency money and no access to credit. There are penalties for workers who try to rent accommodation, sanctions if a worker tries to speak out and contracts that imprison workers on zero hours with the same employer, often for more than three years.
	Zero-hours contracts are not a small matter; they have spread right across the economy into police services, social care, manufacturing, hospitality, the charitable sector and elsewhere. When profits have never been so high and when the ultra-rich and corporate elite in this country have never had it so good, this is a despicable demeaning of the working conditions of a large section of the work force, which some people—I am not saying that I would use this phrase—understandably describe as a modern form of wage slavery.
	Another alarming and dangerous aspect of weakened employment conditions that is becoming more widespread is the impact on health and safety. In the building industry, false self-employment through the device of payroll companies not only costs taxpayers £1.9 billion a year in lost revenue, of which £1.2 billion comes from employers avoiding national insurance contributions, but has serious implications for site safety. Sites that use false self-employment often have a higher accident rate because they usually do not have independent safety representatives. They also have a higher turnover of staff, meaning that safety measures are often lost, are not heard or are fragmented. The fact that falsely self-employed workers can be fired without warning means that they are far less likely to raise safety concerns. That explains why, over the past eight years, more than 55 construction workers a year on average have been killed just doing their ordinary work.
	Similar conditions apply on the railways. Network Rail uses more than 500 contractors and labour-only suppliers. Less than 10% of its workers are engaged on
	permanent contracts. The Office of Rail Regulation has stated, rather delicately, that it is
	“mindful of the considerable risks that can arise from safety critical staff working for more than one employer”.
	That is a hopeless understatement. The practice is clearly dangerous. We should not tolerate such fragmentation of employment being used to cut corners when it puts human lives at risk.
	In conclusion, Britain will not be a civilised place to work until all workers are paid at least the living wage; free access to justice for aggrieved workers is fully restored; bogus self-employment is ended; health and safety regulations are independently enforced in all dangerous occupations; zero-hours contracts and agency work are strictly regulated, if not eliminated, to ensure that important and necessary working rights are not sacrificed; all workers who have been blacklisted—a practice which recently came to light—are fully compensated and a public inquiry held to ensure that it never happens again; wages councils are reintroduced because, as Winston Churchill understood, they are the only effective way to protect the very poorest; and, finally—because I do not just want to eliminate the negatives—a positive platform is established for employment rights through a partnership between management and the unions in the running of companies. That concept, which this House should encourage, has long been the mark of some of the most successful companies abroad, including in Germany. This Government, like other Governments of the past, have an appalling record on employment rights. Until that is fully reversed, we will not earn our right to be called a civilised nation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There is a seven-minute time limit on Back Bench contributions. It may be necessary to revise that time limit down, depending on how we proceed.

Richard Harrington: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: When the occupant of the Chair stands, Members are supposed to sit. Now that I have finished speaking I will sit down, the hon. Gentleman can stand up and I will call him.

Richard Harrington: I must apologise for my lack of co-ordination in sitting down and standing up, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to correct that in future.
	I listened carefully to the speech by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and wondered if he was living in the Britain of Benjamin Disraeli’s book “Sybil”, or the United States of “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck. It is not the Britain I recognise today. Historically, I agree and accept that in the industrial revolution and beyond—I include his point about the 1920s—there was large-scale exploitation of workers by organised capital and its management. I know that that sounds a bit Marxist for Conservative Member, but I accept that that happened. Today, however, thanks very much to trade unions and, I might say, the endeavours of the Labour party in the past, there is now a situation where the rights of organised labour, and
	labour that is not organised, have reached an equilibrium with the rights of capital and management. I accept that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will disagree with that.
	I am very pleased to say that the days of images of employers sitting in their brown leather chairs in gentlemen’s clubs in Pall Mall sacking workers at will, and the images of people driving up and hiring those who are desperate for employment for a day or two days, have long gone. Workers have won their rights the hard way and I would oppose any attempt to take them away. However, it is my contention that while low pay is a significant problem and I would never make light of it, and while poverty is a significant problem and I would never make light of it, the balance today is very different.
	The argument that private sector employment spends its time trying to get around the labour laws by coming up with devices, such as zero-hours contracts and casual labour, is not only misleading but insulting to the many businesses, small and large, in my constituency that are expanding. They are taking on labour and apprentices—whoever they can—because they have confidence in the economy and in their employees. Employees are a very expensive commodity for employers, because of training and the time it takes for recruitment, and employing people is not done lightly. It is not something that employers do just because they think, “Well, I’ll try it for a few weeks and then if it doesn’t work I’ll fire them and make them get on with something else.” Life today is not like that. I can say that, having been an employer most of my life. In our current position we are all employers, albeit on a small scale.

Julian Smith: Will my hon. Friend clarify how many people he has created employment for in his long career?

Richard Harrington: In one business, I started with two employees, of which I was one. When I left, the business was responsible for 2,000 employees in seven countries, but I cannot claim full credit for that since the purchase of the company, when there were 600 employees. I therefore have some experience of being an employer, and of seeing different regimes in different countries. I am absolutely appalled by the exploitation of labour, in whatever country it may be, by those who employ people on wages that are not living wages. Whatever the law is, I believe that a morality applies: employers should not employ the labour if they cannot afford it.
	In the limited time available, I would like to say a few words about zero-hours contracts. It is very easy to criticise them, without really understanding what they are. The general public might think, from reading newspapers, that these contracts are like the casual labour of old. Actually, they are not. This may sound like a GCSE question, but are they about modern employment flexibility or old-fashioned exploitation? It is clear from his speech that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton feels that these contracts are very much like industrial revolution-type exploitation of labour.
	It is certainly true that there are some abuses of these zero-hours contracts, and that should not be tolerated. I am delighted that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—I am pleased to see in her place the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills,
	the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson)—is conducting a full inquiry into zero-hours contracts, and we all very much look forward to hearing its findings.
	My proposal is that many companies in all types of industry use zero-hours contracts responsibly. They provide work, for example, to parents who have different needs for child care and to students, and they provide opportunities for people to join the work force in a flexible manner, perhaps while they study or carry out other commitments. Companies that use these contracts responsibly offer full training, paid holiday and all the other things that people in normal employment receive—and so they should, both legally and morally. They do not ask people simply to be on call at all times or prevent them from knowing how much they are going to earn.
	Let me cite McDonald’s as an example. Here I must disclose an interest in that my younger son has been working for the company over the summer. Interestingly, McDonald’s employs 92,000 people in 1,200 restaurants. Many Opposition Members sneer at this kind of work; they call it “McD work” and there are many other clichés that go with it. McDonald’s, however, takes a pride in the employment it offers and in the training it gives people. During the application procedure, it asks how many hours people want to work, and it organises its shift systems accordingly. I ask all hon. Members not to view zero-hours contracts in completely black-and-white terms; I think there is a place for them.
	To finish, let me explain that during my employment career, I did a lot of business in Spain and a lot in the UK. I regret to have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in Spain, where youth unemployment stands at more than 53%, much of the problem stems from the fear of employers knowing that if they recruit people but things do not work out, they will be left with a terrible liability. They are not employing people and not giving people a chance because of the type of laws that certain Opposition Members would have us embrace in this country.

Graham Stuart: The latest unemployment statistics in Beverley and Holderness are 3.3%—considerably down from the general election—and we have one of the highest apprenticeship rates in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way we will be able to get the living wage and above as the norm for everyone is by improving our skills? Is that not what the Government are trying to do by strengthening the quality of apprenticeships, some of which lasted for just six weeks when the Labour party was in power?

Richard Harrington: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very good point.
	To conclude, the future for labour and recruitment will, in my opinion, come about by making labour as flexible as possible. Employers do not want to hire and fire people; they want to invest in people and train them. I commend the Government for putting in resources to help them do that. This old idea of a perpetual battle between labour and capital, and between management and working people, makes me wonder which century some people are living in. It is not like that in the real world. The last thing that the 1,400 businesses that
	employ between two and nine people in my Watford constituency are thinking about is how to recruit people as cheaply as possible in order to exploit them. Taking people on is a huge thing; businesses want to give them good and well-paid jobs. They do not want to take away any moral rights, let alone legal rights, that they have.
	It is time for us politicians to give credit to those who employ people. They are not the enemy. Being able to employ people is a great privilege in life, while waking up in the morning and thinking how responsible we are for so many people’s livings is a big responsibility and burden. It is even more of a burden than the one that we politicians bear. I do not think that the situation is black and white. I do not take these matters lightly, but the fact is that, in the modern age, there must be a balance that enables workers to choose where to be employed and enables employers to plan their businesses with good, well-qualified labour. Employees should not have to pretend that they are stuck there for life, or that their employers are stuck with them for life if things do not work out.

John McDonnell: I do not disagree with the views of the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) about the need for an element of balance in relationships at work, and the need to secure long-term employment. I think that those are our overall objectives: we want to create a productive industrial relations climate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) was right to end his speech by referring to the need to engage with workers and involve them in their firms’ plans.
	Let me give four brief examples of abuses in parts of industry that we need to address in the House. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union is currently involved in a dispute at the Hovis company in Wigan. Hovis has been taken over by Premier Foods, and there have been a great many layoffs. The union has negotiated as best it can in order to secure the long-term future of the company, as well as what is best for its members who are being laid off, but there have been abuses, one of which seems to be occurring in other parts of industry as well.
	Hovis in Wigan started to take on workers who were paid less and had less favourable conditions than the existing workers, and also to use zero-hours contracts. That led to a strike. A negotiation took place and the union thought that the dispute had been resolved, but the company then started to employ agency workers. It used what is referred to as the “Swedish derogation”, which means that an agency can employ staff directly, and those staff can then work alongside others while being paid less and experiencing less favourable conditions. Members may recall that the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) raised the issue in the House only a month ago, in connection with Tesco. Such practices cannot be acceptable according to anyone’s standards of decency or justice, and we need to look into the Swedish derogation and how it is being abused by some employers.
	The Hovis dispute is still going on, and is becoming bitter as a result of the Government’s intransigence and its use of various different devices. The union has taken every possible opportunity to try to secure a negotiated settlement.
	Let me give another example. For a number of years, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which represents the majority of seafarers in this country, has lobbied Government—the last one and this one—in an attempt to ensure that the national minimum wage applies to all seafarers working on ships operating out of UK ports. What has been happening is that the minimum wage has not been applied to those who are not European economic area nationals. On some ships, people working alongside British seafarers and doing the same job as them are being paid £2.25 or £2.35 an hour, which is not acceptable.
	The last Government introduced some legislation and undertook a consultation, and a working party was set up. The current Government have retained that working party and have made recommendations, but companies are still paying ridiculously, appallingly low wages. We have just discovered that Condor Ferries, which sends ferries to the Channel Islands, is paying people £2.35 an hour, completely ignoring the national minimum wage legislation. No one finds that acceptable.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned railway track workers. Network Rail is now using hundreds of sub-contractors. Members may recall that track maintenance was brought in-house because of health and safety problems that resulted in some tragic accidents, including two near my constituency, one at Paddington and one at Southall. I attended the funeral of a driver who died in one of those accidents. We discovered that track workers were being employed by contractors and sub-contractors, and there was no supervision of safety whatsoever. That is the case again now, because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, fewer than 10% of track workers are now employed directly by Network Rail.
	We are finding that a new device is being used, as has been mentioned. Track workers are urged—almost browbeaten—to sign on to payroll companies, which the sub-contractors then use. Workers have to pay the payroll companies just to be paid themselves, but it is a device used by those companies to avoid tax. We need to examine the practice, both as a tax avoidance issue, which is a scandal, and because some track workers are contracted at the same time by up to 20 different contractors. They are given bits of work by each of those employers, and they are sometimes pressurised into zero-hours contracts as well. I believe that Network Rail’s overall supervision from the contractor to the sub-contractor to the worker is breaking down, posing a real risk to health and safety.
	We discussed blacklisting at length during the debate on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, and also a few months ago. The blacklisting of workers continues. We have just had an example of Crossrail blacklisting a worker. There was a campaign which resulted in mass demonstrations, with hundreds of workers turning up on the site and blocking the roads around it. There was a great deal of coverage in the press, which Members may have seen. Crossrail has now settled and that worker has gone back to work.
	The case demonstrates that that still happens and that blacklisted workers still find it difficult to secure compensation. Legal cases are taking place. We need to come back to the proposal of having a compensation
	scheme. We know from the Consulting Association, which was mentioned the other day, which companies were participants. They should be brought together to set up a voluntary compensation scheme. If they do not, we should introduce a statutory compensation scheme.
	Finally, exploitation takes place nearer home as well. The Members Tea Room staff are having their contracts torn up. Some of them have been on those contracts for 20 years or so. They are told that the new contract is a re-interpretation of existing contracts. It means that their terms and conditions are being cut. We need to ensure that we protect our colleagues who work alongside us in this building, as well as others for whom we want to secure employment rights.

Stephen Lloyd: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing the debate.
	It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I know that employment rights are an issue for which he has fought for a long time and I appreciate some of the information that he discussed, especially in relation to Network Rail and the maritime industry. I want to explore those topics further because I support his comments.
	I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington). It is not the first time I have tended to agree with him when he has spoken in the House. Although employment rights are very important—crucial in many ways—and I will discuss them as my speech progresses, to me the most important thing that the coalition Government have achieved in the past three years is a remarkable success on the jobs front. I have only to look across the sea to see what has been happening in Europe, where France, Spain and Italy have been devastated by the numbers of people who have become unemployed, and compare that with what we have achieved in the UK through considerable effort by employers in the private sector, by Government in the public sector and by our fellow citizens.
	We have employed almost 1.5 million people in the toughest recession I have ever been through. I am 56 years old. I was in business for many years before I went into politics. This is my fourth downturn and it is far and away the toughest one that the country has been through in my experience. Despite that, by working together to give so many people jobs in comparison with the rest of Europe is testimony to the enormous effort and work that so many people have done in this country. It is brilliant.
	In Eastbourne, following close working between the chamber of commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, the council and the training colleges, the latest figures for August show that unemployment is down to 3.9%, the lowest rate since 2009. We have seen more than 2,500 apprenticeships since I launched the 100 apprentices in 100 days campaign two and a half years ago.
	My point is that this has been an appalling recession. I know so many business owners and staff who have worked so hard over the past few years to keep jobs and get through the recession. I know employers who have said to their staff that no one would get a pay rise for the next 12 months, or 24 months, including directors,
	so that they can get through. Other employers have said that they will take a 20% pay cut to get through. I have never known anything like it.
	I compare that with previous recessions, when unemployment shot up and there was tremendous animosity between employers and employees. This time, despite what some Opposition Members say, that has not been the case. There has been an understanding, particularly in the private sector, that, “My God, if we are going to get through this we have to roll up our sleeves.” It has really worked, because we have 1.4 million new employees after such a shocking recession, and we are not out of the woods yet. I think that should be lauded to the skies. It is absolutely magnificent. I think that it has worked only because both parties have worked together.

Graham Stuart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Lloyd: Where?

Graham Stuart: Behind you.

Stephen Lloyd: Yes, of course.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the 1.4 million new private sector jobs. The credit for that should go to the people who displayed solidarity, because they put their immediate, personal interests behind the group interest. That is one of the reasons that so many people have stayed out of the dole queues, contrary to what all the experts and economists predicted. It is a success, and it is enormously to the credit of those people. What we need to do now is improve our skills and earn more money so that everybody can have a decent wage.

Stephen Lloyd: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is precisely my point. It has been an exceptional example of community work between employees and employers. I should also explain that unfortunately I have hearing only in my right ear, which is why I was not sure where the intervention was coming from.
	From the Liberal Democrat perspective in the coalition, the issue of employment rights is important issue because it is about fairness. Although it is incredibly important to me, as a Lib Dem, that employees have as many sensible rights as possible, I want flexibility. I recognise that the vast majority of employers are good employers, and that the vast majority of employees are hard working and dedicated. The challenge with regulation is how to make it flexible while at the same time preventing grotesque employers.
	I have a good example that I have addressed to the Minister. As she knows, one of the campaigns I have been working hard on, both personally and as chair of the all-party group on Citizens Advice, relates to something I discovered in my constituency and later discovered was true nationally. Many employees, some of them very vulnerable people, go to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal or non-payment of wages. The employer might lose, but the vulnerable employee never gets any money because the employer either does not
	pay or deliberately forces themselves in bankruptcy so that they can start again under a different guise. I know that the Minister is looking into that, and I would be keen to have an update today on how we can strengthen the law so that the small proportion of disreputable employers are not allowed just to ignore civil cases.
	Zero-hours contracts are an important issue that I have been studying. I regret to say this in a Backbench business debate, but I sometimes get frustrated by the element of humbug from the Labour party. The Labour Government had 13 years to address zero-hours contracts but did nothing, so I find it tiresome when vitriol is poured on us and the coalition is accused of ignoring the issue, as if the previous Government had a good record. They did not. Furthermore, more than 20,000 members of staff working for Labour councils are on zero-hours contracts. This is a challenge for both sides. My personal view is that we need much more robust research to identify the scale of the problem. I can see how unscrupulous employers are abusing zero-hours contracts, but I know from my own experience of talking to people who work in the university sector and the NHS that some of them like those contracts.
	I have had meetings with the Secretary of State about this, and my personal request to the Minister is that we conduct some really robust research involving consultation with all sides, including the trade unions and employers, so that we can make an informed decision. A much more robust code of practice would certainly be helpful. However, the most important thing is that this is about jobs, and on that the coalition is delivering.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am going to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench contributions again, to six minutes. We are not making quite enough progress, and the debate will lapse at 5 o’clock.

Jim Sheridan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this long overdue debate. Parliamentary protocol is such that I could not participate in the debate over the past three days, but I have observed the unedifying spectacle of the coalition Government acting out of sheer arrogance in forcing through legislation that will impinge on millions of workers. That was somewhat disappointing. It was equally unedifying to observe the pigeon carriers for the coalition Government forcing through the legislation, and refusing to answer questions about its impact on workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) asked perfectly honest questions of the pigeon carriers of the coalition Government, but it was extremely difficult to get any answers. I do not think that I have much influence with the Labour leadership, but in the unlikely event of Labour not gaining an overall majority at the next election, I sincerely hope that we can resist any temptation to go into a coalition with the Liberals, having seen what they have done this week.
	Earlier this year, several colleagues and I visited Azerbaijan to talk to trade unionists there. Azerbaijan is not exactly the most democratic place in the world,
	but to our horror we discovered that the trade unions there enjoyed better relationships and more employment rights than we do here in the UK. Azerbaijan is a young democracy and we are the oldest, yet we are still fighting for employment rights. That, too, was somewhat disappointing.

Richard Harrington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Sheridan: No, I am sorry, there is not enough time.
	I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on occupational safety and health, and I see the legislation that is being proposed as somewhat disappointing. Every week at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly give recognition to our armed forces personnel, but let us put this in perspective. Last year, there were 44 tragic fatalities among our armed forces personnel in Afghanistan, but there were 49 fatalities in the UK construction industry. We rightly place an emphasis on our armed forces, but we do not pay enough attention to those people who lose their lives in the construction industry, because their deaths do not create sexy headlines.
	Fatalities are not the only issue in the construction industry that we should be concerned about. There are 5,000 cases of occupational cancer every year. Mesothelioma is still a terrible issue. Asbestos is still a danger in our schools, with more than 140 teachers dying from mesothelioma in the past 10 years—not to mention the number of janitors, administrative staff and cleaners. Despite this, employment rights are still being trampled on by this coalition Government.
	Much has been said about zero-hours contracts and about blacklisting—the arguments have all been rehearsed—but I want to take colleagues back to the tragic Piper Alpha incident, which happened because of the lack of safety on the oil rigs. The major oil companies had made it clear that they were not going to invite trade unions on to the oil rigs, and it was not until after Piper Alpha that the trade unions won the recognition on the oil rigs that they had fought for. It is no coincidence, notwithstanding the tragic Puma accident a couple of weeks ago, that safety standards went up when the unions got recognition on the oil rigs.
	I am a great believer in manufacturing, which we need, as we cannot survive by cutting each other’s hair. This country’s manufacturing base—I am talking about this Government and the previous Government—is in such a state because manufacturing companies could decide on a whim to close a factory, or whatever it may be, and there was nothing the workers could do.
	For me, there is nothing more frustrating than people coming to my surgery and saying, “I worked for a company for 25 years and I’ve just been told I’m being sacked. They are transferring my job to the Czech Republic to exploit cheap labour.” My hon. Friends and I get frustrated and angry about not being able to do anything to help those workers. The free marketeers, as they call themselves, believe that the market will deliver the jobs. It is delivering the jobs—jobs with zero-hours contracts, part-time jobs and jobs for the self-employed. It is important that we try to get a grip of the issue.
	In my early days—before I came into this place and when I worked for a living—I was with Thales, a well-respected company. Last week, I was at its 125th anniversary and the Thales management went out of their way to tell people of the positive role that trade unions have played in that company, which has survived for 125 years. I suggest to those who try to paint the trade unions as demons to listen to the Thaleses of this world, because trade unions are a positive force for good.

Julian Smith: I pay tribute to Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who highlighted examples of employer malpractice. They raise powerful issues that we need to address.
	The points that I shall make will not belittle those issues, nor shall I suggest that we should not take better enforcement action on such malpractice, but I want to make the case for the Government, who for the whole of this Parliament are reviewing employment law. They are considering that framework for two big reasons, the first of which is jobs. The Government have been proven right that consideration of employment law—they are considering other parts of the legal system as well—can lead to the creation of jobs—1.4 million, as we heard earlier. The second reason is that when we poll employers in Britain or talk to them about what is causing them issues in their business, they say that it is employment law.
	Generally, employers do not want to take away workers’ rights, and often problems arise because of bureaucracy, perhaps when they want to make people redundant when the work relationship has broken down. The Government have rightly decided to consider employment law from the perspective of employers in much more detail.
	Some initiatives have been referred to, such as that to make things easier if the relationship between employee and employer breaks down. It is a modest proposal on settlement agreements, which are a simplified form of compromise agreements, which developed under Labour. Employers will have two years to make a decision on a worker, which will give them the confidence to take somebody on and allow them to end a relationship if it is not working out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) said, an employer would not bring a relationship to an end unless there was a real problem. Employers want good workers and will look after them.

Stephen Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that one challenge in countries such as Italy, or even France, is the fact that it is so expensive to hire new people that the economy is locked down and sclerotic? That means that it is almost impossible for young people to get a job.

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend is right: we are the envy of most countries in terms of our employment law. The shareholder initiative has received a lot of criticism but it is just another attempt to make it easier for new, smaller, principally technical companies to take people on, give them a shareholding, maintain their fundamental rights but provide a bit of flexibility. It is not just about making things easier for employers, however, as the Government have a good track record on employees.
	We have introduced the commitment to flexible working and are bringing forward shared maternity and paternity leave. Labour Members talk about a high level of pay, but the Government have introduced shareholder votes for executive pay, and we are pushing forward with numbers of women on boards. We are reviewing zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage has risen under this Government. I think we can be proud.

Graham Stuart: May I take issue with my hon. Friend because he missed out the fact that we have also raised the threshold at which someone pays tax? By rising to £10,000, that threshold will make a huge difference to people on low earnings, creating an incentive to work.

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a long list, and I think we can be proud. These are modest changes but they are intended to help both employer and employee.
	I do not agree that unions cannot be helpful in relationships between employers and employees, and I think they play an important role, particularly in bigger companies. I believe, however, that the current tactic of the unions on the relationship between employee and employer is barking mad, and I will give two examples of that. First, a gentleman in a village in my constituency runs a big company. He outsourced some of his work, and that outsource company laid off some staff. That gentleman and his family have been harassed by a particular union for months, with people coming on coaches to invade the village and demonstrate against a decision for which he was not responsible, using a tactic that the union has imported from America.
	The second example is a piece of information sent to, I think, Unite members over the past few weeks, suggesting that they see the employer as an opponent and someone with whom they should be deliberately having a fight. That is what upsets me most about the way that the unions are looking at the issue. I have attended most debates on employment law since becoming a Member of Parliament, and the fact that so many Labour Members take the view of the unions, as in the examples I have given, means that they are not taking an objective view of the importance of employment law. The shadow Minister has employed people and knows full well that these reforms are the right way forward, but for whatever reason, he is blinkered by other constraints.
	In conclusion, the employment law world is changing, and changing fast. This debate on zero-hours contracts will be writ large in years to come, and there will be more part-time working, more multiple employment and working from home, and probably much more self-employment and entrepreneurship. It will be a wholly different way, and if Labour Members do not look at that trend and look five or 10 years ahead, they will fail to represent workers and those people they have often represented so well through the unions, as in the cases we heard earlier. I urge them to consider the Government’s reforms, support them and see them in the light of incremental change, rather than as a radical return to a past that possibly never existed.

Andy Sawford: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling time for this important debate. It is a particular pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who set out many important issues, as well as other colleagues who highlighted some of the issues that I want to speak about.
	The living standards crisis that people are facing is not only an issue of pay and the rising cost of goods, but of security. People now feel less secure and more pressured at work than at any time in the past 20 years, according to the latest UK skills and employment survey. Our country already has the third most liberal labour market in the OECD, but since taking office the coalition has shown real determination to undermine people’s protections at work, making it easier to fire people but not easier to hire people. In effect, they have heaped further insecurity on working people. I shall speak today about two aspects of that insecure working that I have campaigned on before and since my election to the House—the rise in the use of zero-hours contracts and the use of employment agencies.
	Zero-hours employment is now widespread in many sectors of the economy, and it is especially prevalent in areas of higher unemployment, where the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers in Britain exist without knowing when the next payday might come. That is certainly the case in my constituency. People on zero-hours contracts tell me about waiting for a call or turning up to the workplace day after day, only to find there is no work, but their contracts make it difficult to find alternative employment or to claim jobseeker’s allowance. I have heard examples of people making child care arrangements or paying for transport to work and then waiting for hours before being told that they are not needed. Other people have told me that because of zero-hours contracts they are unable to get a bank overdraft, a mortgage or car finance. For those people who are getting regular work on a zero-hours contract, they know that it could end at a moment’s notice and they could be left without sick or holiday pay.
	In an exchange with me over the summer, the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that later this year it will start asking about zero-hours employment in its regular surveys. Everyone recognises that its estimate of 250,000 people on such contracts is well wide of the mark. We know that people working in McDonald’s, Burger King, JD Wetherspoon, Sports Direct, Cineworld and Boots are on such contracts, as well as 307,000 workers in the care system, according to the Government’s own figures. We know that the NHS has almost 100,000 workers on zero-hours contracts, which the BMA has described as a real risk to patient safety.
	I fully accept that for some people casual contracts can work, such as the students who work as lifeguards at my local swimming pool, or the retained firefighter who also works occasionally for the Co-operative Funeral Service. If casual contracts are fair, reciprocal and appropriate, they can have a place in the labour market. But there is a clear distinction between such employment and the way in which millions are now being exploited on zero-hours contracts. It is important that we draw the distinction, and there are three main practices that must stop.
	The first is requiring an employee to be available for work when no work is guaranteed. The second is requiring an employee to sign an exclusive contract when no work is guaranteed, so they cannot take work elsewhere, and the third is when employees are working regular hours over a sustained period but their contract does not reflect that. I have introduced a private Member’s Bill to address the issues with zero-hours contracts, and I will set out how I hope we can give effect to changes that would protect people in such circumstances.

Richard Harrington: Given the hon. Gentleman’s views on zero-hours contracts, will he condemn the Labour councils mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who have so many employees on zero-hours contracts?

Andy Sawford: Corby borough council employs some people as lifeguards in the local swimming pool on casual contracts that are not exclusive and do not require people to attend for work or else breach the contract. Those are clearly casual employment. Any council, of whatever stripe, that uses such contracts must do so in a way that is fair and reciprocal. I urge Labour councils to give a lead in that, and they are doing so. They are looking at the care sector, for example, where insecure employment has a real impact on the quality of care, as well as on the employees, to address the issue. I applaud them for that and think that the Conservatives’ attempts to use it as a smokescreen is unhelpful in such an important debate.
	I urge companies not to wait for 2015, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has promised to take clear action on this. That is why I met McDonald’s and talked about employment in its business. This week I also met the managing director of Starbucks, and I have talked to employers across my constituency and to councils about care workers. I want them to take action now, because that would be good for their reputation and for retaining a motivated, loyal and trained work force. I am pleased that companies such as Tesco, Asda and Morrisons—whose human resources director will lead a review of this issue for the Opposition—are already showing that such contracts are not necessary for a successful business.
	The issue of temporary workers working through employment agencies is a particular concern in Corby and east Northamptonshire. For historic reasons, we have a large proportion of jobs through employment agencies, with a disproportionately large number of agencies operating in the town. Rogue agencies that do not adhere to the basic framework of legislation to protect workers are a particular problem.
	With great regret, I read recently that the Government intend to abolish the employment agency standards inspectorate, which plays an incredibly important role. I was pleased that the Minister agreed that it could undertake inspections in my constituency. It found more than 70 separate breaches of the law, and also found, working with HMRC, £100,000 owing to local workers because of minimum wage issues. My constituent, Irene Hamilton, said:
	“I am so glad I never have to go to work for an agency now that I am retired…I felt that I was invisible…Don’t be sick, don’t go on holiday, no family or funeral problems are expected of agency workers. It was soul destroying.”
	Her example is typical of so many people in my constituency.
	There are a wide range of issues. The use of the Swedish derogation, a giant loophole that must be addressed, has been mentioned. I am working locally to implement a code of practice. We must get much better at enforcement. I have also introduced a private Member’s Bill to extend the powers of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to all sectors of the economy—not to license, necessarily, in all sectors of the economy, but to be able to enforce the law in all sectors of the economy. The abuses are widespread, and I hope to have more time on another occasion to speak about some of the issues.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The last two speakers will have a time limit of five minutes each in order that we can hear the wind-ups.

Iain McKenzie: I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing the debate. I want to concentrate on two examples of employment contracts that challenge employment rights. Many people who are desperate for work sign such contracts, only to find later that they have signed a document that allows the employer to opt out of the natural progression to equal employment conditions. I have been told of employment agencies using and developing ways to absorb into their contracts the list of “reset to zero” the qualifying period for equal pay and conditions. I speak, of course, of zero-hours and pay between assignments contracts.
	Austerity has been the spur that some unscrupulous employers have used to introduce erosion of employment rights, as evidenced by the increasing frequency of zero-hours contracts. The zero-hours contract offers no guaranteed work. As part of the general erosion of terms and conditions of employees, employers have increasingly been turning to the likes of zero-hours contracts. Under such contracts, an individual typically undertakes to be available for work, but the employer does not undertake to provide any work, and only pays for the hours worked. The zero-hours contract is now widely used, and a survey by the industrial relations service indicates that 23% of employers now include zero-hours contracts as one of their employment options. The Office for National Statistics also found a major surge in zero-hours contracts during 2012.
	Zero-hours contracts quite simply undermine employment rights. The variability of earnings throws into doubt an individual’s eligibility to claim various forms of benefit. The employment rights of those employed on zero-hours contracts pivot on whether the contract imposes “mutuality of obligation” between employer and employee. To gain such rights, it is crucial for employees to prove that the contract constitutes an employment relationship—not as easy as it sounds, but it has been successful, and it is why we see a move to find an even more flexible contract option, which offers a loophole even to avoid the commitments of zero-hours contracts. That is why we witness the growth in pay between assignments.
	As we have heard, the pay between assignments contract is sometimes referred to as the Swedish derogation. Someone with experience of the Swedish derogation recently commented in HR Magazine that he was advised that
	“if they ask me to go to an assignment 5 hours away from my home for minimum wage with no expenses and I refuse”,
	his contract would expire and he would have to start again with no direct employment in this country. He said that indicates how bad employment rights have got in this country.
	The TUC has lodged a formal complaint with the European Commission against the UK Government for failing to implement the temporary agency workers directive properly, which has led to tens of thousands of agency workers being paid less—up to £135 a week less—than permanent staff for doing the same job, despite EU rules saying that they are entitled to equal pay. The Government are yet again failing to protect British workers from exploitation.
	Pay between assignments contracts can often be even worse than the much-criticised zero hours contracts. The whole point of the 2011 agency regulations was to bring the principle of equal treatment, including equal pay for agency employees, into UK law. However, the introduction of these contracts means that many agency workers are signing away their rights to equal pay, which for most people is the most important element of the regulations. The madness here is that, compared with those on pay between assignments contracts, those on zero hours contracts are actually better off, because they qualify for equal pay after 12 weeks—although that does not always necessarily follow.
	I am proud that Labour introduced the minimum wage, one of our greatest achievements in government. In its last budget, my Inverclyde Labour council introduced the living wage. We spent most of the 19th and 20th centuries trying to build up employment rights; let us not spend the 21st century dismantling them.

Julie Hilling: I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) on securing this debate. I am a proud trade unionist—in fact, I am a member of two trade unions—so I am pleased to speak in the debate. I get angry about the myths that Government Members often cite. Listening to today’s debate, and particularly to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), people would think that everything in the garden is absolutely rosy and what the Government are doing for employees is brilliant. That is not the world I and my constituents live in.
	The economy has not experienced a double-dip recession and sluggish growth, and only just avoided a triple-dip recession because of the UK’s employment rights, but because the Government cut spending too far and too fast, hitting business confidence and choking off growth. They do not seem to understand that removing the rights of workers only increases job insecurity, harms work force morale and productivity and lowers consumer confidence, making things worse, not better. Only 6% of small and medium-sized enterprises think that excess regulation—all regulation, not just that on employment rights—is a barrier to growth and harms their business, but there is consensus that the real problems are a depressed economy and difficulty with bank lending.
	The Government are keen on international comparisons and, according to the OECD, out of the 36 richest countries, the UK has one of the lowest levels of worker protection, beaten only by America and Canada. That is not a record to be proud of. The Prime Minister has said that his proposals will make it easier to hire people, but we are not that stupid; we all know that this Government’s proposals actually make it easier to fire people. He seems to believe that, with 2.7 million unemployed, including 1 million young people, making it easier to sack people will increase growth. With reasoning like that, it is no wonder that we have never met any of the Chancellor’s growth figures.
	Government Members seem to hold the view that it is difficult to sack people, but as a former trade union official who frequently had to tell members that they had no case—using the mantra, “The law is as it is, not as we’d like it to be—I can tell them that it is already shamefully easy to dismiss workers. The Government’s change to the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims means that almost 60% of all employees under the age of 24, 1.4 million part-time workers, and 32% of all black and minority ethnic employees are not protected.
	Having attempted to protect the jobs of such employees, I can attest to how easy it is for them to be sacked. Like colleagues in the House, I can tell some real horror stories, such as the senior railway manager who was accused of gross misconduct. We managed to prove that he was not guilty of any of the charges, but a month later he was given “the envelope”—the pay-off, which he had no alternative but to accept. Workers in a company in my constituency are about to be left in limbo: none of the companies involved in a TUPE transfer was prepared to take responsibility for them, leaving them with no wages, no redundancy payment and unable to claim benefit. I could go on. There is a theme: power remains firmly in the hands of the employer. Our employment protection is already weak and is being weakened further.
	Government Members have made various other suggestions to weaken employment protection, including removing small firms from legislation. As about 44% of private sector employment is in SMEs, that would create a second-class citizen at work and make it harder for small firms to recruit good staff.
	There have been rumblings about equality legislation, but as the Fawcett Society stated:
	“Cutting red tape can all too easily mean scaling back on equality. Many of the regulations being revised—such as protections from unfair dismissal—have been vital in shoring up women's security in the workplace.”
	Good employers are not frightened by trade unions and employment rights. The best employers welcome trade unions as partners and have higher than minimum standards of employment rights, but on a zero-hours contract people cannot get a mortgage, buy a car, buy a new fridge or even feed their children. Good employment practice is good for the economy. It promotes confidence and growth. The Government should be promoting good practice, not smashing basic rights.

Ian Murray: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on his speech, which was compelling. He made a wonderful contribution. He was right to talk
	about the Government taking a sledgehammer to workers’ rights and to raise the issue of the low-wage, low-skill and low-productivity economy that the Government seem to want to create.
	I welcome the opportunity to debate the Government’s approach to employment rights. However, it is not the first time we have done so in the House and it will not be the last. Month after month, I and my colleagues have stood in this Chamber and in Committee rooms in the House to oppose policy after policy from this Government, who are seeking to remove the rights of people at work. The list is extensive. I will give just a few examples to highlight where we are: the Government’s Beecroft by the back door “compensated no-fault dismissal” proposals; what has been described as the Chancellor’s bonkers “shares for rights” policy; the increase in the qualification period for unfair dismissal; the introduction of employment tribunal fees; the disgraceful abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board without any debate in the House; changes to the employment tribunal compensatory awards; the removal of civil liability in health and safety; and the cutting in half of the collective redundancy consultation period. Just yesterday, we debated at great length part 3 of the gagging Bill, which would take trade union membership to a different level. All that is creating insecurity in the workplace.
	At every opportunity since 2010, Ministers have attacked the rights of people at work. As many Members have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), the Government have made it easier to fire workers, rather than hire them. It is notable that it has been Lib Dem Minister after Lib Dem Minister who has been doing the dirty work for the Government in this area. That is having a significant effect on opinion across the country. A recent poll showed that 72% of British workers feel that employers have more power than employees. As YouGov reported yesterday, the number of people feeling insecure at work has almost doubled in the past three years from 6.5 million to 12 million—all on this Government’s watch.
	The Government’s attitude to the workplace is that employers need more power relative to workers, that the rights of people at work are a barrier to growth and jobs, and that protection in the workplace holds back the economy—and all in the name of economic growth. Taking employee rights and health and safety back to Victorian times will not create economic growth. This insecurity causes great instability for workers. They are already earning £1,500 less a year on average than they were in 2010. The former Employment Relations Minister, now Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), had it exactly right when he said that there was an inextricable link between job security and consumer confidence and that policies that would damage job security would be “crazy”. He was absolutely correct. Unfortunately, he made those comments before he got the employment brief and systematically set about making some people less secure at work.
	The Government’s approach runs contrary to all the evidence, much of which we have heard in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby and others mentioned the OECD. We must remember that before any of these changes were made, Britain’s employment law regime was the third most liberal in the world, just behind only the USA and Canada.
	I would like to pick up something that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said. He painted a picture of a utopian economy and said that the biggest issue for employers is employment law. Actually, the statistics and analysis do not reflect that. It is worth noting that a survey of SMEs carried out by the Government’s very own Department for Business, Innovation and Skills earlier this year showed that, while 7% of businesses thought that regulation was a barrier to business success, 32% cited the economic downturn as the main issue.
	Let us consider that in a day-to-day business. I have run my own businesses. Government Members continually bob up and use the term “unions” in this place as though it was like saying “Macbeth” in the theatre. Those having experience of running their own business know that happy, healthy employees who arrive at work every day being made to feel as if they have a real stake in the business, rather than being treated like cogs in a wheel, make far more productive employees. That has been highlighted by evidence recently produced by the CBI and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Tom Blenkinsop: The north-east as a region is more productive than other regions, and it is no coincidence that it has the highest trade union membership in England and Wales.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is a committed trade unionist and is committed to the north-east. He highlights an important point. Where there is a partnership between trade unions and employers, it is possible to have a really productive work force, which benefits everyone. Every successful industry in the country has had that powerful and strong relationship between trade unions and employers.
	We have talked a lot this afternoon about zero-hours contracts. The CIPD released figures just last month showing that up to 1 million people were on such contracts. I understand the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) wanting to highlight the fact that zero-hours contracts have been around for a long time. Indeed they have, but the issue is the explosion in the number of such contracts in the past few years and their exploitation. They work for some people, and that is something that we have tried to deal with by looking at the ways to resolve some of the issues. But Ministers have not done enough in this area. They have instigated a half-hearted investigation while continuing a laser-like focus on removing people’s rights at work—an approach now synonymous with the report produced by Adrian Beecroft. This timid response is emphasised by the fact that not one Conservative Member of Parliament attended the recent Westminster Hall debate on zero-hours contracts.
	We recognise the flexibility of zero-hours contracts, but we have to deal with exploitation on a cross-party basis because everyone in the House realises that it is a problem. We welcome the steps set out by the Leader of the Opposition just last week.
	I was struck by some of the issues raised by hon. Members in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) always speaks so wonderfully on these issues. He highlighted problems in some of the industries around the country
	in terms of workers’ rights. It is about dealing with the abuses. This is not about setting one group of people off against another, setting employers off against employees or setting trade unions off against anyone else. It is the responsibility of the Government, politicians and constituency Members of Parliament to deal with those abuses.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) mentioned the Lib Dems’ refusing to stand up to the abuse of zero-hours contracts and said that we did not spend enough time dealing with cases of people who are killed at work.

Stephen Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Murray: I am struggling for time I am afraid.
	It surely cannot be right that people go to work to earn a living for their families and do not return home. We do not concentrate enough on such issues.
	The hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned zero-hours contracts. He was right to do so, and I hope that he will join us in trying to deal with the issue. He cares passionately about it, and I hope that we are able to do something on a cross-party basis.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) always speaks well in employment law debates. I think it struck the whole House when he said at the end of his speech that we had spent the 19 and 20th centuries building up rights and we should not spend the 21st demolishing them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) is passionate when she speaks about her involvement with trade unions, and she is right that the contribution that they make to our communities makes the economy stronger. We should welcome that rather than attacking it.
	The signs of the cost of living crisis that faces millions across the UK are there for all to see. The weekly shop is more expensive. Energy bills seem to be rising day to day. Living expenditure such as travel is becoming more and more unaffordable. On top of all this there is a hidden contributor to the cost of living crisis—job insecurity compounded time and again by the Government’s ideological attack on rights at work. The Government fail to recognise that growing insecurity in a Tory-Lib Dem Britain further squeezes people’s living standards and hampers economic recovery.
	It has been a good debate this afternoon and I hope that Lib Dem Members in particular take heed of some of the issues raised and change their tack on employment rights.

Jo Swinson: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this debate. It has been wide ranging, with contributions of great interest from Members on both sides of the House.
	The Government’s vision for the UK’s labour market is for it to be flexible, effective and fair. We want people to be able to access the type of work that they want and
	employers to be able to create jobs and manage their work forces effectively. We can help to do this by minimising the burden of regulation so that employers are free to create jobs and hire new staff. At the heart of our approach is a belief that employers and individuals are in the best position to decide what works for them. The role of Government is to provide the right framework to facilitate that, not to dictate outcomes through heavy regulatory approaches. Crucially, we need to ensure that people are treated fairly at work and that employers can compete on a level playing field without being undercut by unscrupulous employers who break the law and exploit their staff. We therefore launched a comprehensive, Parliament-long employment law review to tackle the perceptions and the reality of employment law burdens and to implement our strategy in practice.
	The Government have introduced a range of different measures that have been mentioned by hon. Members. I want to talk about two that have not had a huge amount of focus in this debate but are radical and important. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) mentioned the proposals on shared parental leave. That is a radical reform to employment law allowing mums and dads to choose how they share the time off after their baby is born. That is good for children, particularly because the involvement of dads early on in the process can help child development. It is good for parents, making it easier for them to balance their responsibilities with their work. It is also good for employers, who can benefit from a more motivated, productive work force, with a more flexible system that enables working mums who want to return to work to do so earlier.
	We are also extending the right to request flexible working that will come in from next April. It has already been available to parents, having been introduced by the previous Government, and it has been a great success, with four in five of the requests made being granted. There are all sorts of reasons why people might want to work flexibly, not just because they are parents. Perhaps they have other caring responsibilities. Perhaps they volunteer in their community. Perhaps they are older workers nearing the end of their working life who, rather than working full time one day and not at all the next, would like to taper their working as they ease into retirement. We need to move towards this situation being much more the norm than an anomaly. We have no need to keep our workplaces stuck in the 1950s with a culture of presenteeism. Modern technology has revolutionised the way that we can work, making people much more productive at different times. Indeed, employers can see the benefits of flexible working too.
	Unsurprisingly, I disagree with some Labour Members’ characterisation of what the Government have been doing. Certainly, the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton used some analogies that I would not agree with, but I do agree with many of the things he said. He rightly highlighted the fact that many of the employment rights enshrined in EU legislation can be very important. He talked about the problems of directors’ pay differentials. There is great agreement in all parts of the House that that situation has become unacceptable, particularly where there has been payment for failure. Where there has been great success with a company growing, employing more people and bringing more wealth to the country, I do not think people mind
	payment being made accordingly, but where there has not been that success, there should not be unearned large packages. That is why the Government’s proposals to empower shareholders so that there is much more accountability on directors’ pay are important.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised an important point about the normalisation of zero-hours contracts, which many others also talked about. As the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) said, these contracts are not inherently bad. They can be applied in an fair and appropriate way, and people generally have no problem when there is flexibility on both sides and no imbalance of power in the relationship. Equally, many employers recognise that it would be counterproductive for them, as a matter of course, to put all their employers on to zero-hours contracts, because where the employee is, in effect, taking the place of a permanent full-time worker, or even a permanent part-time worker working 20 or so hours a week, that does not necessarily create the most positive and productive relationship between the employer and the employee. Of course, that is why many employers do not routinely have employees on zero-hours contracts. The point about normalisation is interesting and the Government have been doing significant work on zero-hours contracts. The hon. Gentleman raised some sensible points.

Andy Sawford: Will the Minister give way?

Jo Swinson: I will address some of the hon. Gentleman’s points before taking his intervention.
	The hon. Gentleman discussed exclusivity, which is one of the issues highlighted in the Government’s work to date. If somebody is not getting guaranteed work on a contract, there is an inherent sense of injustice in the suggestion that they cannot seek work elsewhere. On the balance-of-power relationship, can a worker actually refuse work, or is it thought that if they do so they will not be asked to do shifts in future? Does the contract reflect the employment situation and is the proper information available? When they apply for a job, does the employee know that it is a zero-hours contract that is being offered, or do they think they are applying for a permanent job? We have been investigating genuine issues over the summer and we will look at how we can address any abuses.

Andy Sawford: I simply want to ask what action the Government have taken.

Jo Swinson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be a little more patient. As I have said, we undertook a review over the summer and are looking at the information. I hope he will not have to wait too long before we announce the next steps.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) made an interesting contribution, particularly with regard to his comments about morality, which is not always a word associated with debates about capitalism and employment, but I think it is important. There is a legal framework for minimum rights, but it is fair to point out that we all have additional responsibilities to one another as human beings and individuals.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) said, most employers are good employers. I do not think that anyone in the House would wish to suggest that that is not the case. We are, therefore, dealing with a minority of rogue employers who can be unscrupulous. Most employers take their responsibilities seriously and want to make sure that they are treating their workers well, not only because they realise the business benefits of doing so, but because it is the right thing to do. It is important to remember that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who is no longer in his place, intervened a couple of times to point out the great success in the apprenticeship sector. I agree with him about that and how important it is that we have made things easier for low-paid workers by cutting their income tax bills, a policy that went straight from the front page of the Lib Dem manifesto to the pockets of hard-working people. I am delighted that my hon. Friend and other colleagues are now so supportive of that particular policy.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a range of specific concerns about employment issues. We discussed blacklisting yesterday and in previous debates, and the Government will continue to keep a very close eye on that. I urge Members and others to be aware that free and confidential advice is available if people are worried about their employment rights. They should get in touch with the pay and work rights helpline, which is available online or on 0800 917 2368. Anybody can access it, and if they have concerns about national minimum wage payments, such cases can be passed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for enforcement action. Indeed, national minimum wage problems are prioritised on that helpline.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) has achieved great success in his own work in improving the number of apprenticeships. He also raised the important issue of employers who do not pay out the award after losing an employment tribunal. He knows that we have been working on that and we will hold further discussions, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, on what action to take.
	The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) mentioned the positive role that trade unions play and how they have driven up safety standards on oil rigs. He was right to highlight that and the role they can play in improving workplaces. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) talked about zero-hours contracts and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) echoed many of the points made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North.
	Unemployment is now falling. There are 1 million more apprenticeships and 1.3 million more jobs in the private sector. That is a good record, but despite this we must avoid complacency and make further improvements to create more jobs, so that people can get the work they want and employers can take on the skilled workers they need in order to grow.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered employment rights.

COLOMBIA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Robert Flello: I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate, which follows on from the point of order that I made exactly two weeks ago. I also point out that today is the three-year anniversary of the imprisonment of human rights defender, David Rabelo.
	While the global community has understandably been focused on the horrific events in Syria, the actions of the Government of Colombia sadly continue to go unnoticed, despite an escalation in their oppression of the Colombian people in recent weeks.
	In letters and meetings, we are asked to believe that the Colombian Government have changed for the better and that Colombia has a President who wants to end the war with the guerrillas, bring peace to his country and move his nation forward. I welcome and wholeheartedly support the peace talks. However, I am disappointed to see that in recent months, President Santos and his Ministers have reverted to the tactics used under former President Uribe’s Government of accusing any opposition groups of being linked to terrorism and brutally repressing social protest. Following the public relations campaign of the past year or so, during which President Santos has travelled around to meet world leaders, many of us are afraid that the mask has slipped and that we are seeing the real President Santos.
	The ambassador to the UK, Mauricio Rodriguez Munera, has tried to convince me that things are getting better in Colombia: that one fewer death means progress and that one fewer disappearance is a good thing. Despite the positive rhetoric, more than 250 civil society activists have been murdered since President Santos came to power and countless people have been imprisoned by the Colombian authorities on the weakest or indeed non-existent evidence. Questions were raised about the Colombian Government’s commitment to justice for victims when we saw the recent military justice reforms, which led to further impunity for military crimes and about which the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have raised concerns.
	I believe President Santos when he says that he wants to succeed in the peace talks. However, there is a contradiction in negotiating with the FARC, which is on the point of political participation, while at the same time denouncing trade unionists and civil rights activists as terrorists. That does not create a political climate that is conducive to democracy and peace. I know that there are serious opponents to the Government’s peace process, not least former President Uribe, but instead of appeasing those extremists, a strong commitment to peace and democracy needs to be shown.
	The ambassador and the Colombian Government should not be surprised at our scepticism. After all, President Santos was the Secretary of State for Defence under President Uribe. As Defence Secretary, he presided over the perverse and sickening incentive scheme that was designed to reward military personnel for the guerrilla body count. My scepticism was reinforced when President Santos responded to the so-called “false positives” scandal by changing the law to give immunity to military personnel.
	That was just incredible. Yes, it can confound our scepticism when we see President Santos negotiating with the FARC to find a peaceful end to the conflict, but he undoes that good by eradicating any opposition by denouncing trade unionists and civil rights activists as terrorists.

Jim Shannon: This is a very important issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Colombian Government’s policy of land grabs and removing land from the peasant population is further inflaming the situation in Colombia?

Robert Flello: The hon. Gentleman is correct that that causes further problems. I know that indigenous people are still having their lands taken.
	The politicians, trade unionists, activists and media commentators that President Santos denounces are not terrorists, but he knows beyond doubt that it is effectively a death sentence to say that they are. Yet still he does it. Is it any wonder that I and others are sceptical?
	I will turn my attention to the events of recent weeks. As a result of the west’s unending drive towards profit without conscience, the US-Colombia and EU-Colombia trade agreements have been put in place with very weak labour and human rights conditions. Trade agreements already disadvantage poor peasant farmers in Colombia, so it is not surprising that they have been protesting. It is estimated that approximately 250,000 peasant farmers have protested, despite the dangers they know they face.
	How have President Santos’s Government responded in recent weeks? At least 10 people are dead, more than 800 are wounded and 512 people have been arrested, including 45 children. A curfew was imposed and 50,000 troops were put on to the streets of the country to crack down on strike action. The social movements have said that this amounts to an undeclared state of siege, with demobilised right-wing paramilitaries used to attack demonstrators. However, the peasant farmers have been joined in their protests by health workers and students. Video evidence shows horrific beatings, torture, systematic vandalism and theft of the few possessions and food owned by the peasant farmers by the police. Human rights organisations have catalogued sexual abuse, torture, degrading treatment, beatings, indiscriminate use of tear gas and rubber bullets, and intimidation. As a result of this unchecked state violence, the people of Bogota came out on to the streets in their thousands.
	On 29 August, President Santos made a speech putting the blame on the protesters, and sent in the ESMAD riot police. In the same speech, he smeared the Patriotic March movement, knowing full well that it would put them in danger. This followed his public statements about the June protest in Catatumbo, which lead to four protesters being killed.
	NIZKOR, a collective of high profile and respected human rights organisations in Colombia, has catalogued the appalling behaviour of the riot police. It reported that ESMAD has been acting in the Boyaca department as an occupying army that has supplanted civilian authority and committed systematic, generalised and indiscriminate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as acts of vandalism and the excessive use of force. The following are just some issues it has reported: indiscriminate shooting of police issue weapons against the population; sexual abuse of youths
	by police agents, as well as repeated threats to sexually abuse women, partners and daughters of the peasants; acts of torture and other mistreatment that involve the arbitrary use of tear gas in enclosed spaces, including in nurseries with 3 to 6-year-old children inside, as well as the use of elements projected or applied to the bodies of the inhabitants; attacks against helpless youths and minors, who are taken from the demonstrations and assaulted while alone; the indiscriminate firing of tear gas from helicopters over gatherings of people; the arbitrary invasion of homes of peasants and the destruction of their property; the identification, false accusation, persecution and threatening of leaders of the agriculture strike in Boyaca; mass arbitrary arrests of demonstrators; looting, theft of money and other common crimes committed by the security forces while accompanied by the investigative police, even in the capital of the department; the occupation of institutions protected under international humanitarian law such as the Pan-American Educational Institute, the New Bolivarian school and the Paloblanco school, all in Boyaca; and the use of ambulances for the transport of members of ESMAD, the riot police, which in itself constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law.

John McDonnell: It is exceptionally worrying that there has been an escalation in the targeting of human rights defenders, with 37 dying in the first six months of this year.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is that escalation that led me to secure the debate.
	On 28 August, NIZKOR reported that in addition to the previous offences it catalogued, ambulances were being prevented from going into areas where the security services had injured, and in some cases killed, inhabitants. It is worried that civilian authorities find themselves intimidated or supplanted by curfews, militarisation and the hiding of the identification of riot police and police. I welcome the negotiations that are now taking place between the strikers and the Government, but it took 21 days, many deaths and the arrest of many activists to lead to them.
	Let me turn now to the arrest of the deputy president of the agricultural workers’ union. Huber Ballesteros is a prominent agricultural workers’ union leader. He is on the executive of the Colombian equivalent of the TUC, and is a leader of the peaceful, socio-political Patriotic March movement, which, as I have said, has been smeared by President Santos. In the classic, tried-and-tested method of the Colombian Government, Huber has been arrested and is in prison accused of rebellion and financing terrorism. It is the old Colombian Government trick of saying that there are incriminating e-mails on laptop computers and using non-credible witness statements, which have been discredited in previous failed cases and criticised by the UN. So-called evidence that would make a British court wince with shame is trotted out to justify this false imprisonment.
	There is a certain irony in the fact that Huber should be accused of funding the FARC guerrillas, when the current Defence Secretary has previously said that FARC funded the patriotic march. One would have thought the Colombian Government could be at least consistent in their wild accusations! In a way, I am grateful that Huber has not met the same fate as Henry Diaz, the
	agricultural workers’ representative I met 18 months ago in Putumayo district, whose clothes were found, symbolically, between two military checkpoints last year—disappeared and murdered for the crime of representing peasant farmers.
	Huber’s reputation internationally is such that he was to be a guest at the TUC conference this week. He is widely respected by Canadian, Irish, UK and US politicians and trade unionists. Sadly, he must travel everywhere in Colombia with a team of bodyguards. Huber is now in La Picota prison. According to Mariela Kohon, the director of Justice for Colombia,
	“the prison is intensely overcrowded, prisoners are routinely denied any medical attention”
	at all. Indeed, in November last year, she met a prisoner in this very same prison who had literally carved off a slice from his face to remove a tumour.
	I am glad to see the Minister in his place, but I have been repeatedly disappointed that successive UK Governments have seized upon the slightest crumb—real or illusory—that Colombia has turned its back on state-backed murder and oppression. Parliamentary answers show Ministers heralding the peace talks, the national protection unit, land restitution and so on as being signs of a better Colombia. We should, of course, congratulate any effort to improve the situation, but Ministers should and must dig a little deeper and judge the Government of Colombia on results, not intent—on concrete actions, not words on paper. Protecting trade unionists because the Inter-American court has ordered it, while at the same time accusing the same people of being terrorists is not coherent. Neither is returning land to peasants, while murdering protesting peasants. Engaging in peace talks while intimidating peace activists is, once again, not a coherent approach. We need to see civil society more included in the peace process, and victims from all sides given a voice.
	It saddens me to say that our Government have for too long too naïvely accepted the word of the Colombian Government as fact. That can be seen in their welcoming the announcement that there will be no more impunity for military personnel at exactly the time as the Colombian law granting such impunity was changed. No wonder our reputation as a bastion of human rights in the world is so poor in Colombia, particularly among those at the front line of defending human rights. It is shameful to think that the average Colombian views the British as supporters of the oppressor, not the oppressed.
	Instead of accepting the sweet words of President Santos, I hope our Ministers will now take a tougher public line, call for civil society’s involvement in the peace talks, publicly reject accusations that the trade unions and the opposition are linked to the guerrillas, get our ambassador to visit Huber in his prison cell in Colombia and speak out about the oppression being doled out with impunity.
	If President Santos is genuine about wanting to bring Colombia to peace, he should free Huber Ballesteros. I have received letters from the ambassador, saying that everything is being done through proper process and that the Executive cannot intervene. Well, I am afraid that history has shown otherwise—that all too often the Executive intervenes, and not in a positive way. Now we have an opportunity to intervene positively. If President Santos is genuine, he should stop denouncing anyone he
	disagrees with as a “terrorist”, and he should call off his slavering, rabid riot police and their accomplices in the military and police. President Santos would, I am sure, want the rest of the world to view him as a saviour of Colombia and as the man who brought peace to his country. He can do that, but not by copying Uribe—he needs to be a man of peace, not an elected dictator.

Hugo Swire: Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing today’s Adjournment debate, and thank other hon. Members for their interventions. I know that he and others in their places today take a close interest in the situation in Columbia. I know that the hon. Gentleman spoke at the “Justice for Colombia” fringe event at the TUC conference on trade unions and the Colombia peace process—on Tuesday, I believe.

Robert Flello: I was certainly due to speak at that event with Huber Ballesteros. Unfortunately, the business of the House meant that I could not be let loose from here.

Hugo Swire: Perhaps other Labour Members would rather have been detained here than have had to face the brothers there. That, of course, was a decision facing them, not the hon. Gentleman.
	The events of recent weeks have highlighted both the progress that has been made in Colombia and the challenges which—as we have heard—most certainly remain. The Colombian Government’s announcement of their readiness to begin peace talks with the country’s second largest group, the National Liberation Army, or ELN, alongside the ongoing talks with FARC, brings closer the hope of a sustainable peace for all Colombians after decades of conflict. That is something that I believe all of us in the House would wish to support.
	At the same time, however, there has been a series of social protests throughout Colombia, highlighting the divisions between rural and urban areas. The farmers are demanding structural reforms that address their needs, promote their competitiveness and secure investment in much-needed infrastructure. The Colombian Government have recognised the existence of genuine grievance in the country, and have pledged to address its underlying causes.
	While it is right for us to acknowledge the strides that Colombia has made towards reform since President Santos took office in 2010, it is also right for us to continue to express concerns when we have them, and, as all true friends should, advise when things could be improved. The ongoing protests throughout Colombia remain a particular cause of concern. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s permanent under-secretary raised specific concerns about the violent incidents taking place during protests in the Catatumbo region with the Colombian Defence Minister during his visit to the United Kingdom in June. Also in June, our ambassador to Colombia met representatives of the peasant association who were protesting in Catatumbo, as well as senior Government figures in Bogota. We also remain concerned
	by allegations of police violence against protesters—of which we have heard from the hon. Gentleman—and also of violence by protesters against the police, which have so far cost the lives of eight civilians and one police officer.
	We are aware of the recent detention of trade union leader Huber Ballesteros. Our ambassador to Colombia has written to the Colombian prosecutor general to highlight our interest in the case, and to request information on the charges. Staff at our embassy in Bogota are seeking permission to visit Mr Ballesteros in prison.
	Although we recognise that the protests have helped to raise the profile of dissatisfaction in the countryside and the need for reform, we should not forget the impact that the strikes have had on others in Colombia. We are concerned by reports of food shortages and dwindling medical supplies, which usually affect the most vulnerable. The loss of income for low-paid workers who are unable to get to work through the blockades will be difficult for them and their families to manage. The impact of the protests on British companies operating in Colombia is also of concern. We are working with the Colombian authorities to ensure that the situation is resolved in the most appropriate and timely manner.
	For the reasons that I have given, we welcome the efforts to find a peaceful resolution through dialogue. We are encouraged by President Santos’s statement that there will be an investigation of the recent violence, deaths of protesters, and any use of excessive force by the police.
	More broadly, human rights remain an integral part of our relationship with Colombia. We support the efforts of the Colombian Government to address human rights challenges, which we raise regularly with senior Government representatives. When, along with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, I met President Santos during his visit to the UK in June, human rights formed an important part of the agenda. We have a strong and valuable bilateral dialogue on the issue.
	The 2012 Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on human rights provides a detailed assessment of the key areas in which the Colombian Government have made progress, and those about which concerns remain. Progress that is highlighted includes the peace talks, the creation of the national human rights system and the work of the national protection unit, which now protects more than 10,000 Colombians. However, the report also expresses concern about human rights violations, primarily by illegal armed groups, and about high levels of impunity.
	At Colombia’s United Nations universal periodic review in April, we recommended that the Colombian Government increase their efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible for threats or violence against human rights defenders, trade unionists, community leaders and journalists. We also recommended that Colombia ensure that its reformed military justice system is fully compliant with international human rights law, and that all allegations of human rights abuses by military personnel are investigated promptly and effectively. The Colombian Government have assured us that this reform will not result in impunity for servicemen. We will press the Government to publish information and statistics on their efforts in this area regularly.

Robert Flello: I am listening carefully to the Minister’s response. He will be interested to know that following the death of 3,500 men who, as I mentioned in my speech, were persuaded to go to remote parts of Colombia as a sham work opportunity and then killed by the army in order to claim the rewards under this sickening scheme, not a single person has yet been held responsible.

Hugo Swire: The Government have assured us that there will be no impunity for servicemen. I raised this with the deputy Defence Minister, Jorge Bedoya, during his visit to the UK in March and we will continue to press the case.
	The UK is fully engaged on a range of human rights issues on the ground. Our embassy works with local NGOs and the Colombian Government on a number of projects, whose aims have ranged from increasing access to protection measures for human rights defenders to raising awareness of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. Our embassy in Bogota will support a project to analyse risks around next year’s parliamentary and presidential elections and to increase transparency.
	Our engagement with Colombia on these issues forms part of a rich and diverse bilateral relationship—

Jim Shannon: On the elections, is the Minister aware of any independent observers who will be monitoring the elections to ensure that they are free, democratic and without restrictions?

Hugo Swire: My default position on elections, wherever they are, is that there should be international observers. In my role as Commonwealth Minister and Minister with responsibility for Latin America, Asia and south-east Asia, I am constantly arguing that where there are questions of transparency, people who are respected should be invited from the international community to observe elections. If there is nothing to hide, all that does is validate the elections. So I would suggest to anyone that they invite in election observers. It is a good rule.
	Colombia is an increasingly important commercial partner, offering real opportunities for British companies. We are working with UK industry and the Colombian Government to ensure that British businesses are in a strong position to win contracts. We make no apology for that at all. Unlike the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, we regard trade agreements, such as the EU-Andean free trade agreement with Colombia and Peru, as important for economic growth and prosperity in developed and developing countries. I believe that these free trade agreements will eventually benefit all the people, including those living in the most remote areas, the farmers and so on. It takes a little time and it is painful, but that is where we disagree philosophically about free trade.
	The UK pushed hard for a legally binding human rights clause in the agreement, which is consistent with our policy to have a frank dialogue with Colombia and Peru on human rights. We strongly encourage British companies to respect human rights in places where they do business. That applies internationally. The UK’s
	action plan on business and human rights, launched by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 4 September, sends a clear message to British firms about the standards expected of them overseas. In May, we part-funded a major event in Colombia on implementing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and we are now working with the Colombian Government as they create a national strategy of their own.
	Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for securing today’s debate—

John McDonnell: Before the Minister sums up, may I ask him one specific question? On 14 September it will be the third anniversary of the imprisonment of David Ravelo Crespo. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, raise this case again, ensure that we are expressing our concern about this continued imprisonment of a human rights defender, and perhaps seek access to the prison?

Hugo Swire: I will certainly convey the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to the Colombian ambassador here in London and ensure that our ambassador in Bogota does the same.
	I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South once again for securing the debate. Hon. Members have highlighted many important points and I fully recognise the concerns raised. All in the garden is not rosy. The Government are not blindly supportive of everything being done by the Government in Bogota—[Interruption.] That might be the perception, but the truth is that we are a critical friend and we believe that President Santos is doing an incredibly difficult job. The end goal, which must be a peaceful negotiation and settlement with the FARC and other groups, is something that we believe will radically transform the lives of everybody in that country, wherever and at whatever level they live.
	After almost half a century of conflict, Colombia has made great strides in the last three years towards the goal of a prosperous nation free of armed conflict. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that sometimes, rather than just seeing the glass half empty. Of course there is still more to do; how could there not be, given what the country has suffered over the years? In order to achieve greater progress, Colombia must continue to address the legacy of an incredibly difficult and tragic past and tackle the myriad and difficult challenges it still faces.
	This Government will remain a constructive, supportive and critical partner, committed to supporting reform moves under President Santos in order to see a developing and prosperous Colombia where the human rights of all people are respected and where all people can live in safety, not in fear of their lives, and enjoy the prosperity that I believe is owed to them and that, as a result of President Santos’s reforms, will eventually trickle down to them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.